Gill v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The mark or object is of no probative value if the field notes or grant contain no-description of it or no reference to it and there is no evidence directly connecting it with the work of the original surveyor.”' Gill v. Peterson, supra.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boyt v. Weiser · Vireca Corporation v. Cole

2. ““The lines of a grant must be established by the calls in its field notes. If those calls are inconsistent, then certain rules of construction and mere parol evidence may be resorted to in order to resolve the doubt and to establish the line which was actually run by the surveyor. It is but a case of a latent ambiguity in a written instrument. A writing unambiguous upon its face may become doubtful when applied to the subject-matter of the description. On the other hand, if there be no conflict in the calls found in the field notes of a survey, there is no room for construction, and the calls must speak for themselves. To permit the introduction of parol evidence to vary the calls would be to violate the familiar rule that extraneous evidence is not permissible to vary a written instrument.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wood v. Stone

3. ““It is to be observed, however, as held in the authority last cited, and in many others, that parol evidence is admissible to show where, on the ground a survey was actually made, when the calls in the field notes or deed are conflicting or ambiguous, or when the effort to apply the description to the ground gives rise to ambiguity. Hughes v. Sandal, 25 Tex. 162, 164 ; Thompson v. Langdon, 87 Tex. 254, 258 , 28 S.W. 931, 935 ; Johnson v. Archibald, 78 Tex. 96, 102 , 14 S.W. 266 , 22 Am.St.Rep. 27 ; Wilson v. Giraud, 111 Tex. 253, 263 , 231 S.W. 1074, 1078 . The purpose of admitting the parol evidence under such circumstances ‘is not to override that which is written, but to properly interpret it.’ Wilson v. Giraud, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wood v. Stone