600 So. 2d 59 - Frazier v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 21 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) an employee's contractual pension right is not a gratuity, but a property interest owned by him; (2) to the extent that the right derives from the spouse's employment during the existence of the marriage, it is a community asset subject to division upon dissolution of the marriage; (3) the right to share in a retirement plan is a community asset which, at the dissolution of the community, must be so classified — even though at the time acquired or at the time of dissolution of a community, the right has no marketable or redeemable cash value, and even though the contractual right to receive money or other benefits is due in the future and is contingent upon the happening of an event at an uncertain time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. LA. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. McWilliams · 639 So. 2d 1210 - Goodwyne v. Goodwyne

2. “An employee’s contractual pension right is not a gratuity but a property interest earned by him. Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So.2d 118, 122 (La.1991); T.L. James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834 (La.1976). To the extent that the right derives from the spouse’s employment during the existence of the marriage, it is a community asset subject to division upon dissolution of the marriage. La.C.C. art. 2338; Hare v. Hodgins, supra; Sims v. Sims, 358 So.2d 919 (La.1978). Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee’s spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attribut able to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community. La.C.C. art. 2336; La.R.S. 9:2801; Hare v. Hodgins, supra, and authorities cited therein. * * * * * * After termination of the community property regime, the interests of the former spouses in anything held in indivi-sión are treated as coownership and the provisions of law governing coownership apply unless there is contrary provision of law or juridical act. La.C.C. art. 2369.1 (1990), and Comment thereto; K. Spaht & L. Hargrave, Matrimonial Regimes, 16 La.Civil Law Treatise, Sec. 7.19, at 317 (1989).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Courtney v. Courtney

3. “Ratification is a declaration whereby a person gives his consent to an obligation incurred on his behalf without authority. An express act of ratification must evidence the intention to be bound by the ratified obligation. Tacit ratification results when a person, with knowledge of an obligation incurred on his behalf by another, accepts the benefits of that obligation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 So. 3d 1012 - Means v. COMCAST, INC.