Sharp v. Womack’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 17 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The judgments of the trial court and of the Court of Civil Appeals awarding to defendant the land referred to in suit No. 7931 [the 1925 suit] is affirmed, and in so far as they award judgment to plaintiff in error [Sharp] on the disclaimers filed by defendant in error [Womack] they are also affirmed. The judgment of of both courts establishing the division line between the lands awarded to defendant in error and the lands awarded to plaintiff in error as the ‘cut bank’ is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to the trial court to establish the division line, as to the Lyle and Fryar tracts, by locating the line ‘beginning at the intersection of the E.B. line of the eastern L. W. Tinnin Survey with the original bank of the Red River; thence south 60 west with the original bank of Red River about 1,100 varas more or less to the intersection of the W. B. line of the Lyle land.’ “As to the Nations tract the cause is remanded, with instructions that the court establish the north line of that tract by locating the ‘old (south) bank of Red river as it existed during the year 1915 and prior to ’the time it changed its channel during said year.’ As to all land which may be shown to be an accretion to the Nations tract, with its north line located as indicated above, the cause is remanded for another trial.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Womack v. Sharp

2. ““The title and ownership of the accreted land lying between the Northeast Worden fence and the Brazos River became an issue because there was no proof as to what land is to be apportioned to the Worden tract and the Meyer tract as an accretion and thus part of the title to which the accretion attaches. The location of the boundary line must be extended from the 1937 adjudication (Feik vs. Meyer) in conformity with the rule for apportioning accreted lands between adjoining owners along rivers, announced in Sharp , and hereinabove referred to.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Meyer v. Worden