Haney v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““ ‘We think the District Court correctly held the parol evidence so tendered to be inadmissible, both: “ ‘(1) To prove that Isaac Haney, although unnamed in the 1938 deed, was a co-purchaser of the tract with Oscar Planey. Parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the purchaser of immovables was in reality some other person than the purchaser named in the act of sale, and thus by such testimony to create title in said unnamed purchaser, Articles 2275, 2276, 2440, LSA-Civil Code; Ceromi v. Harris, 187 La. 701 , 175 So. 462 ; Hanby v. Texas Co., 140 La. 189 , 72 So. 933 ; Eberle v. Eberle, 161 La. 313 , 108 So. 549 ; and the many authorities cited in these three cases, and also, “‘(2) To prove that the receipt above quoted in full was a sale by plaintiff of any interest whatsoever in the land in question. Where a receipt was even more explicit (stating that it was for “payment on place”, without describing the land sold), the Supreme Court held that parol evidence was inadmissible to establish the identity of the land sold; since although admissible in aid of a defective or ambiguous description, parol evidence can only be so used where there is a sufficient reference in the writing so that the title is based substantially on the writing and not essentially on the parol. Lemoine v. Lacour, 213 La. 109 , 34 So. 2d 392 . Cases permitting parol evidence to explain a receipt as a sale relied upon by appellant, such as Guice v. Mason, 156 La. 201 , 100 So. 397 , were distinguis”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 So. 2d 587 - Allen v. George