Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 Tex. 225 - Bunch v. Thomas

Bunch v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1932

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Robertson v. Robertson (1959), Cain v. Rust Industrial Cleaning Services, Inc. (1998)

64 state decisions

130193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

  1. ““It is the settled law of this state that while under the statute quoted the lower estate must receive the surface waters naturally flowing thereon from a higher estate, yet it is not required to receive these waters except in their natural condition, untouched hy the hands of man. * * * “Where the owner of higher lands constructs a ditch to drain the surface water therefrom, which increases the flow of water upon a lower proprietor, or which throws the water upon -his land in a manner different from that in which it would have naturally flowed, to the latter’s injury, it has heen held that the former is liable for the injury thus occasioned, even though the ditch was constructed by him in the course of the ordinary use and improvement of his farm.’’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “That it shall hereafter be unlawful for any person, firm or private corporation to divert the natural flow of the surface waters in this State or to permit a diversion thereof caused by him to continue after the passage of this Act or to impound such waters, or to permit the impounding thereof caused by him to continue after the passage of this Act, in such a manner as to damage the property of another, by the overflow of said water so diverted or impounded, and that in all such cases the injured party shall have remedies, both at law and in equity, including damages occasioned thereby.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The record also shows that Bunch [defendant], while road overseer, built a bridge where the concrete dip had been previously placed. He built the bridge under the direction of the county commissioners. The mere fact, however, that he constructed the bridge under the direction of the county commissioners would not relieve him from liability for the tort, if it was a tort.” ( 49 S.W.2d at 422-423 )”
    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.