Tate v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is contended that the court erred in entering judgment against plaintiff on the evidence introduced by plaintiff showing title in another, when the instruments were only offered for the purpose of showing common source. * * * ” ****** “ * * * While in this case plaintiff did not trace the title into defendants, but he did, by his evidence, show that title had been divested out of himself. “Plaintiff relies upon Article 7382, R.C.S., which in effect provides that evidence introduced by plaintiff to show common source cannot be considered as evidence of a title in defendant unless offered by him, yet in Hovel v. Kaufman, Tex.Com.App., 280 S.W. 185 , at page 188, it was said: ‘But this statutory provision in no wise precludes a consideration of such evidence for the purpose of determining if the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving that he really has title to the land as he claims to have.’ “It is a well settled rule of law in this State that in trespass to try title, plaintiff must recover, if at all, upon the strength of his own title. The burden is upon him to prove a prima facie right of title and possession; if he fails to discharge that burden he cannot recover, and where defendant is shown to be in possession, as in this ease, judgment will be entered for the defendant. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. F L R Corp. v. Blodgett