Cooper v. Buxton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 807 “[n]o one may be compelled to hold a thing in indivisión with another unless the contrary has been provided by law or juridical act.” “Any co-owner has a right to demand partition of a thing held in indi-visión.” Id. In the absence of an agreement among the co-owners, a co-owner may demand a judicial partition. La. Civ.Code art. 809. Generally, a partition in kind is favored over a partition by licitation. La.Civ.Code art. 810; Tri-State Concrete Co., Inc. v. Stephens, 406 So.2d 205 (La.1981). “Property cannot be conveniently divided when a diminution of its value, or loss or inconvenience for one of the owners, would be the consequence of ^dividing it.” Id. at 207 . The party seeking partition by lici-tation has the burden of proving that the property cannot be divided in kind. Id.; McNeal v. McNeal, 98-1586 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/31/99) , 732 So.2d 663 . The decision of whether to divide property in kind or by licitation is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court. Connally v. Nevils, 97-569 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97) , 702 So.2d 1043 (quoting Green v. Small, 227 La. 401 , 79 So.2d 497 (1955)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 So. 3d 522 - Fessler v. Brumfield