Bruni v. Vidaurri’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 153 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Wilcox v. St. Mary's University of San Antonio, Inc. (1975), Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp. (1954)
5 federal appellate · 153 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Watkins v. Smith · Mitchell v. Mitchell · Baldwin v. Goldfrank · Phillipson v. Flynn · El Paso Electric Railway Co. v. Lee
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the fee for representing a minor defendant should be taxed against the minor personally served with citation when the judgment ... is unfavorable to him and it is shown that he has property ..., but that when the minor has no property or estate ..., the court should charge it against the successful plaintiff”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * A case of presumed grant is not made merely by proof of long, adverse claim of ownership and proof of nonclaim on the part of the apparent owner. There must be evidence proving or tending to prove acquiescence by the apparent owner in the claim of the adverse party. * * * We do not hold that direct evidence of acquiescence is required. Acquiescence may be shown by circumstantial evidence.” See Texas Practice, Lange on Title, Vol. 4, sec. 405, pp. 210-215.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Adams v. Slattery · Jeffus v. Coon“The purchase by a person in possession of land of another’s claim to or interest in the land may or may not be a recognition of the validity or superiority of the claim or title purchased. In making the purchase the possessor may intend to recognize the adverse title and claim under it. On the other hand, he may buy in order to quiet his possession and protect himself from adverse litigation; he may “buy his peace”. The question is usually one of fact to be determined by the intention as disclosed by what was said by the parties and by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Id. 166 S.W.2d at 87 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bell v. Lyon
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.