Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 Tex. 193 - Johnson v. Smith

Johnson v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
states following
February 1975
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently February 1975 · most notably Cowden v. Bell (1957), Jackson v. Hernandez (1955)

7 federal appellate · 90 state decisions

360192619301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

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

  1. “But for the payments procured by means of Elymas Johnson's promise to hold for plaintiffs in error, there would have been no divestiture of title out of Sherrod [the grantor]. * * * Considering Elymas Johnson's inability to meet the notes, he would get only benefit from the execution of the parol agreement through the discharge of his personal obligation on the notes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It is certain that an enforceable express trust may be created by one person' agreeing to thereafter acquire title to land in his name for the benefit of others who agree to pay and do pay the consideration for the conveyance.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.