Pearson v. Doherty’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 168 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp. (1954), Fair v. United States (1956)
5 federal appellate · 168 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 Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Speights · Hurley v. Lockett · Howell v. Fidelity Lumber Co. · Fidelity Lumber Co. v. Howell
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The test in such [a] case is, whether taking the finding alone in the one instance, a judgment should be entered in favor of the plaintiff; and taking it alone in the other, judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““... Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that J. W. Carruth recognized W. L. McCaleb as the owner of the land in question at any time after such entry as found by you in Special Issue No. 1? ... Yes “... On what date of dates, if any, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that J. W. Carruth recognized W. L. McCaleb as the owner of the land in question? . .. February 14, 1942, March 1, 1960. “... Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that J. W. Carruth repudiated W. L. McCaleb’s ownership of said land by any act or action on his part at any time after such entry as found by you in Special Issue No. 1? ... Yes “... When do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the repudiation, if any, occurred? ... March 1, 1960””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Doherty contends that the evidence in this case entitles him to a judgment awarding him the title and possession of this land because it shows conclusively that Pearson did not claim adversely as against the true or real owner, and therefore shows that Pearson has not acquired title by the Ten Year Statute of Limitation. We overrule this contention. In our opinion the evidence contained in this record raises a fact issue on the question of adverse claim and possession. It is true that Pearson, in his deposition taken before the trial, stated that he was not trying to take this land away from those who owned it; but at the trial itself Pearson testified that since 1925 he had never acknowledged that any other person than himself owned this land, and that since 1925 he had always claimed it for himself. The record in this condition presents a fact question. Stewart v. Luhning, 134 Tex. 23 , 131 S.W.2d 824 ; O’Meara v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 66 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bounds v. Taylor
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.