92 So. 2d 762 - Brown v. Mayfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We think it is well established by our jurisprudence that the acknowledgment contemplated by the codal article must comply with certain very definite requirements. The acknowledgment must be express; it must be certain; it must be definite; it must be accompanied by or coupled with the clear purpose and intention of the party to interrupt prescription by such an acknowledgment. These requirements have been considered and discussed by our Supreme Court in a number of cases, among which we particularly note Frost Lumber Industries, Inc. v. Union Power Co., 182 La. 439 , 162 So. 37 ; Bremer v. North Central Texas Oil Co., Inc., 185 La. 917 , 171 So. 75 ; Goldsmith v. McCoy, 190 La. 320 , 182 So. 519 ; Vincent v. Bullock, 192 La. 1 , 187 So. 35 ; Goree v. Sanders, 203 La. 859 , 14 So.2d 744 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roberts v. Cooper