Barrera v. Ciolino’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2019
1 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Maloney v. Oak Builders, Inc. · State v. Barras · Kuhn v. Stan A. Plauche Real Estate Company · New Orleans Checker Cabs, Inc. v. Mumphrey · Straus Frank Company v. Brown
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made in search of the parties' intent. * * * The aim of contract interpretation is the discernment of a compatible meaning to all provisions of an agreement. * * * Louisiana contracts are to be interpreted in light of the common intent of the parties, and in light of all of the provisions, so that each provision is given the meaning suggested by the contract as a whole. * * * In ascertaining the common intentions of the parties to the contract, recourse must first be obtained by construing the contract or agreement as a whole; if that process is not determinative, then the next subject of inquiry is the discernment of the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time of contracting. * * * Contracts, subject to interpretation from the instrument's four corners without the necessity of extrinsic evidence, are to be interpreted as a matter of law. The use of extrinsic evidence is proper only where a contract is ambiguous after an examination of the four corners of the agreement. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“IsFelix Ciolino, a licensed pharmacist for over forty years, opened the Ciolino Pharmacy in Metairie in 1974. On July 7,1977, by written act of sale and chattel mortgage for the single, non-itemized, all-credit price of $1,350,000, he and his wife sold to pharmacists Joseph A. Barrera and Douglas H. Boudreaux (who worked in the Ciolino Pharmacy) and their wives the following: I. The trade, business and asset known as “Ciolino Pharmacy”, together with all the good will thereof, located at 4650 West Esplanade Avenue, Metairie, Louisiana; II. All of the movables and property of the said business ... described as follows: (1) The entire stock of merchandise. ... (2) Carrier Air Conditioner Unit and Compressors (25 tons) [and fixtures, equipment, furniture, furnishings, etc., described in detail, plus 30,000 prescriptions on file].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“On October 22, 1987, the district court preliminarily enjoined the Ciolinos from using the name Ciolino Pharmacy. On October 29, 1987, at the Veterans Boulevard site, Ciolino and his pharmacist son Steven opened “C’s Discount Pharmacy ...” Judgment was rendered (1) declaring buyers “the sole and rightful owners of the trade name ‘Ciolino Pharmacy”’; (2) declaring invalid the Ciolinos’ registration of the trade name Ciolino Pharmacy and the corporate name Ciolino Pharmacy, Inc.; (3) permanently enjoining the Ciolinos “from using the name ‘Ciolino Pharmacy in any commercial capacity”; and (4) dismissing the Ciolinos’ demand for declaratory judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.