Kenabrew v. Schneider’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are frank to admit that the above authorities made a great impression on us initially, but upon further consideration we have come to the conclusion that we should remand this case in order that the trial may be had de novo. We do not believe that it is ap pellant’s fault that the stenographer 'in this case failed to transcribe the notes of evidence. The case of Dreher v. Guaranty Bond & Finance Co., Inc., et al., 188 La. 421 , 177 So. 259 , is applicable here. We quote the syllabus: ‘Where stenographic notes of evidence had not been transcribed and stenographer who took testimony had left state and had lost his stenographic notes and absence of testimony was not attributable to appellant, judgment was required to be reversed and case remanded for new trial (Code Prac. art. 906).’ “Also the earlier case of Duprat v. Powell, 162 La. 859 , 111 So. 259 , being another Supreme Court case. In the Duprat case the court stenographer had died before transcribing the evidence and the Supreme Court remanded the case for trial de novo. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. American Adjustment Co. v. Batiste