Abbott v. Temple’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 5 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is generally recognized absence of certain formalities makes a chattel mortgage ineffective against third parties without knowledge even though filed. In Southern Enterprises, Inc., v. Foster, 1943, 203 La. 133 , 13 So.2d 491 , at page 494 it was stated: `Third persons without actual knowledge can not be held to have constructive notice of the existence of the chattel mortgage unless the statutory requirements are strictly complied with. (Emphasis supplied.) "Among the conditions imposed by LSA-R.S. 9:5352, quoted above, is: "In all other cases a full description of the property to be mortgaged shall be set forth so that it may be identified and its location shall be stated.' It is, therefore, essential in order to impress third persons with the chattel mortgage privilege in this state the property shall be so described `it may be identified' and its location stated. * * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 129 So. 2d 330 - Harper v. Borden Company · 175 So. 2d 707 - All State Credit Plan Houma, Inc. v. Fournier

2. “"On this subject-matter, it is stated in Jones on Chattel Mortgages and Conditional Sales (Bowers Edition): "`It is not necessary that the property should be so described as to be capable of being identified by the written recital or by the name used to designate it in the mortgage. * * "`It is obviously impossible in most cases to set forth on the face of the mortgage all the articles embraced in it with such precision that any one, by a mere inspection of the mortgage, without reference to any other source of information, can identify them. * * *" Vol. I, § 53, pp. 94, 95. "`A description which will enable third persons, aided by inquiries which the instrument itself suggests, to identify the property, is sufficient.' Vol. I, § 54, p. 96. "`Parol evidence is admissible to identify the chattels mortgaged. Such evidence may aid but not make a description. The mortgage must of itself suggest inquiry which will result in identification. It is not possible to describe personal property so well as to preclude the necessity of such evidence to identify it. * * *' Vol. I, § 64, p. 129 (Italics ours.) "A review of the cases on the subject-matter shows that the courts of this state, in considering cases involving chattel mortgages where there is no descriptive reference in the act itself to the chattels that would distinguish them one from the other of the same kind, have differentiated between those cases wherein reference is made in the act of chattel mortgage itself as to the loca”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 So. 2d 707 - All State Credit Plan Houma, Inc. v. Fournier

3. “"The jurisprudence of this state in considering cases involving chattel mortgages where there is no descriptive reference in the act of chattel mortgage to the chattels that would distinguish them one from the other of the same kind, have differentiated between those cases wherein reference is made in the act of chattel mortgage as to the location of the chattels at the date of its execution, and those wherein no reference as to location is made in the act. Generally in the former, with some qualifying description, it has been held to be sufficient to affect third parties, whereas in the latter, it has been held not to be sufficient. But even where the instrument gives the location of the chattel there has to be some distinguishing label or characteristic to differentiate it from property of a similar character which may be at the same location. LeCorgne v. Garner, 1927, 7 La.App. 148 ; Christian v. Langford, 1929, 11 La.App. 652 , 124 So. 593 ; Durel v. Buchanan, 1920, 147 La. 804 , 86 So. 189 ; and Continental Bank & Trust Co. v. Succession of McCann, 1922, 151 La. 555 , 92 So.2d 55 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 So. 2d 707 - All State Credit Plan Houma, Inc. v. Fournier