McCarroll v. McCarroll’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 960 So. 2d 186 - Martello v. Martello (2007), 895 So. 2d 807 - Gill v. Gill (2005)
63 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 Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales Inc. · Dixie Campers, Inc. v. Vesely Co. · Juneau v. Laborde · Pitre v. Pitre · Smith v. Southern Kraft Corporation
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A spouse who uses and occupies or is awarded by the court the use and occupancy of the family residence pending either the termination of the marriage or the partition of the community property in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 9:374(A) or (B) shall not be liable to the other spouse for rental for the use and occupancy, unless otherwise agreed by the spouses or ordered by the court.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Webb v. Webb · Richard v. Richard“[p]ublic policy also weighs heavily against the retroactive award of rent under La.R.S. 9:374(C)... when the community is not partitioned for many years, the retroactive assessment of rent is extremely prejudicial to the occupying spouse.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Webb v. Webb · Richard v. Richard“Although parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract, when the terms of a written contract are susceptible to more than one interpretation, or there is uncertainty or ambiguity as to its provisions, or the intent of the parties cannot be ascertained from the language employed, par-ol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity and to show the intention of the parties. Dixie Campers, Inc. v. Vesely Co., 398 So.2d 1087 (La.1981). It is equally well established that the true cause or consideration for a contract may be shown by parol evidence, even though the true consideration is different from that which is recited in the written act. Smith v. Southern Kraft Corporation, 202 La. 1019 , 13 So.2d 335 (1943); Love v. Dedon, 239 La. 109 , 118 So.2d 122 (1960); Hogan v. McKeithen, 527 So.2d 982 (La.App. 2 Cir.1988).”
3 later decisions 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.