Hunnicutt v. Peyton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

74 federal appellate · 1 district · 50 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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[and where one party] enters upon unoccupied land, under a deed or title, and holds adversely, his possession is construed to be coextensive with his deed or title, and the true owner will be deemed to be disseised to the extent of the boundaries described in that title. Still, his possession beyond the limits of his actual occupancy is only constructive. If the true owner be at the same time in actual possession of part of the land, claiming title to the whole, he has the constructive possession of all the land not in the actual possession of the intruder, and this though the owner’s actual possession is not within the limits of the defective title.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 395 Pa. Super. 203 - Arcadia Co., Inc. v. Peles · John T. Moore Planting Co. v. Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S. Co.

2. ““In that case, which was a writ of right for a tract of land, in which the location of a survey was a matter in controversy, a witness was offered to prove that one Moore, who was dead, hut whose name was put' down as one of the chain carriers in making the original survey, and who was subsequently present when lines were run on the same land, had declared that a certain corner was the comer made by the surveyor when the original survey was made and the line was run for that survey. The evidence was rejected, and, this court ruled, correctly rejected, though the declarations offered were made by one who was proved by other evidence to have assisted in running the line. This case is instructive, and we believe it is in harmony with the rule generally enforced in this country. It certainly is in accord with the ruling of the English courts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tracy v. Eggleston

3. ““It has repeatedly been decided in Texas that purchasers under the twenty-fourth article of Mexican Laws of 1825 can alienate their grants as soon as the concession has been made to them, before the land was selected, or the title of possession was issued [citing Ryan v. Jackson, 11 Tex. 391 ; Clay’s Heirs v. Holbert, 14 Tex. 189 ]. In Martin v. Parker, 20 Tex. 254 , it was held that a formal act of sale by the original grantee, with a power to the purchaser to obtain the title of possession, must be held to constitute the purchaser the absolute owner of the property, when he is put into possession of the land and the evidence of title by the proper officer of the government.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Surghenor v. Ranger