Cocke v. Conquest’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 30 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “assist a dishonest debtor in wrongfully defeating his creditor.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Spencer · In Re Neale

2. “The leading and fundamental idea connected with a homestead is unquestionably associated with that of a place of residence for the family, where the independence and security of a home may be enjoyed, without danger of its loss, or harassment and disturbance by reason of the improvidence or misfortune of the head or any other member of the family. It is a secure asylum of which the family cannot be deprived by creditors.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In The Matter Of Wesley R. England, Debtor · Norris v. Thomas

3. “This provision of the Constitution leaves very little basis for distinction between the homestead consisting of one tract of not more than 200 acres, and one made up of several parcels, aggregating not more than 200 acres. It is however, a homestead which the Constitution exempts, and not 200 acres of land in the country. A fundamental idea involved is a place of residence. While circumstances might exist which would fix or maintain the homestead character of the land without actual residence, yet residence is normally an element. Whatever of physical difficulty there might be in actually living on more than one tract of land was doubtless under consideration when the quoted provision was incorporated in the fundamental law. At most, only a very small part of 200 acres of land can be used as a place of actual residence. Whatever effect this actual holding for this purpose may have in impressing the homestead character has not, by the terms of the fundamental law, been confined to the tract of actual domicile. The fundamental law making no distinction, there should be a hesitancy in placing a judicial limitation upon the homestead rights based upon an assumed difference between a homestead of a single tract and a homestead consisting of more than one tract. [[Image here]] Most of the rural homesteads in Texas furnish the means of living as well as the place of living. The law as declared in the Constitution and statutes does not undertake to place any limitation on how the lan”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Mitchell · In Re Brooks