Hooper v. Hooper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The jurisprudence is well settled that, as a general rule, owners in indivision cannot acquire title by prescription against each other. Litton v. Litton, 36 La.Ann. 348 [(1884)]; Simon v. Richard, 42 La.Ann. 842 , 8 So. 629 [(1890)]; Dew v. Hammett, 150 La. 1094 , 91 So. 523 [(1922)]; Hill v. Dees, 188 La. 708 , 178 So. 250 [(1937)] and Arnold v. Sun Oil Company, 218 La. 50 , 48 So.2d 369 [(1949)]. In order for one coowner or coheir to prescribe against the other, his possession must be clearly hostile to the rights of the other and, in such instances, it is necessary, in order to commence the running of prescription, that notice be given by the former to the latter of his intention to hold, animo domini, all of the common property. Ethredge v. Watts, 137 La. 686 , 69 So. 95 [(1915)]; Liles v. Pitts, 145 La. 650 , 82 So. 735 [(1919)]; Gill v. Robinson, 11 Orleans App. 226 [(1914)] and Arnold v. Sun Oil Company, supra. Occupancy, use, payment of taxes and the like will not suffice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 996 So. 2d 545 - JUSTISS OIL CO., INC. v. Hanson

2. “Where the trial court's decision is based on an erroneous interpretation or application of law, rather than a valid exercise of discretion, such an incorrect decision is not entitled to deference by the reviewing court. Kem Search, Inc. v. Sheffield, 434 So.2d 1067 (La.1983). The standard of our review is accordingly de novo.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 So. 3d 423 - HIXSON AUTOPLEX OF ALEXANDRIA, INC. v. Lewis