Cahn v. Cahn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... the parties' ownership interests in that case were different from those in the Cahn property. Joseph Pasternack, Jr.'s co-owner in indivision, Mrs. Samuels, from whom he sought partition, owned fractional interests in the property in full ownership in addition to interests in usufruct. Pasternack, 415 So.2d at 212 n. 1 and 213. Thus, Mrs. Samuels was precisely the person described in the second sentence of Article 543, `both a usufructuary and an owner.' In the present case, Dorothea Cahn is not both a usufructuary and an owner; her only interest in the property is a usufruct. There is no one who is both a usufructuary and a perfect owner of the Cahn property. Therefore, because of this critical factual distinction, we hold the rule in Pasternack inapplicable to the issue before us." Cahn v. Cahn, 459 So.2d 731, 733 (La.App.1984).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 468 So. 2d 1176 - Cahn v. Cahn

2. “"The sole issue we decide is whether one who holds an undivided fractional interest in property in full ownership has the right to seek partition by licitation even though there is a person who holds a usufruct over another undivided interest in the property." Cahn v. Cahn, supra at 732 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 468 So. 2d 1176 - Cahn v. Cahn

3. “"No one can be compelled to hold property with another, unless the contrary has been agreed upon; any one has a right to demand the division of a thing held in common, by the action of partition."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 468 So. 2d 1176 - Cahn v. Cahn