778 So. 2d 736 - Thomson v. Thomson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 549 So. 2d 840 - Rosell v. Esco · 586 So. 2d 118 - Hare v. Hodgins · 405 So. 2d 812 - Succession of Miller · State v. Babin · Holt v. STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By the terms of Article 1539 of the LSA-C.C., “The manual gift, that is, the giving of corporal movable effects, accompanied by real delivery, is not subject to any formality.” This article does not dispense, however, with the necessity of proof of intention on the part of the donor to give. There is an old Latin maxim in law which reads: “Nemo pre-sumitur donare”, i.e., “No one is presumed to give.” This is but another way of stating that the burden of proving the donation is on the donee, and under the decisions of this Court, the proof to support the donation must be strong and convincing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bailey v. Eikert
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.