Hooks v. Bridgewater’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 503 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 533 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““For such contracts to be enforcible in this State, they must come fairly within the rule. If there has been no surrender of the possession of the land, the contract is not within the rule and is incapable of enforcement. It is no answer to say that the rule does not fit the circumstances of the particular contract. That is no reason for making another rule. The rules of law are not thus to be disregarded or evaded. The rule is necessarily a general one and intended for general application. If a particular case does not fall within it, the statute itself governs and condemns the contract on which the case rests. The parol contract here has no basis for its enforcement, other than the plaintiff’s performance by his assuming with Davis the relation and rendering him the service of a son. That was the consideration for Davis’ agreement to malee him the owner of his estate. The case, therefore, is simply one where the consideration for a parol agreement to transfer the title to land has been paid, with no possession of the land surrendered and no valuable and permanent improvements made by the purchaser on the faith of the agreement. In no other character of case resting only upon the payment of the consideration could such a contract be enforced in this State. If the consideration for Davis’ agreement had been an amount of money, however large, and had been fully paid, without pos’session of the land and valuable and permanent improvements the contract would be held incapable of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Harris v. Potts · Battle, Et Vir. v. Butler

2. ““The plaintiff, Bob Bridgewater, brought the suit against the administrator of the estate of John W. Davis, deceased, and the heirs at law of Davis, to' recover Davis’ estate. The suit was, in fact, one to enforce a verbal agreement claimed to have been entered into by the plaintiff’s father— at the time his only surviving parent, when the plaintiff was a child of nine years of age and Davis, whereby the father contracted to surrender plaintiff’s custody and control to Davis and Davis, a single man who never married, agreed upon that consideration to rear the plaintiff, giving him the care and rights of a son, make him his heir and leave to him at his death all of his property. The trial court found that the evidence established the making of the parol agreement; that Davis took charge of the plaintiff under the agreement when he was thus a child and plaintiff’s father never thereafter exercised any control over him; that the plaintiff lived with Davis thereafter, giving him the affection and obedience of a son, and performing chores and services around his home as needed, for which he received no wages or money consideration. Davis failed to bequeath any of his property to plaintiff, dying intestate, leaving an estate of both real and personal property. Before his death he had not placed the plaintiff in possession of any of it. “Judgment for the defendants was rendered in the trial court. On the appeal, this was reversed by the Honorable Court of Civil Appeals for the First”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Battle, Et Vir. v. Butler

3. ““ ‘But it is necessary to the validity of a parol sale or gift of land in Texas, however the rule may be elsewhere, that possession be delivered and substantial and valuable improvements made, with the consent or knowledge of the vendor, upon the faith of such gift or sale.’ [Citing Ann Berta] Lodge, [etc.] v. Leverton, 42 Tex. 18 , and Eason v. Eason, 61 Tex. [225] 227.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hidalgo v. Lechuga