Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 LA 851 - Meyer v. Comegys

Meyer v. Comegys’s Empirical Analysis

1920

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Dufrene v. Bernstein (1938), City of New Orleans v. Joseph Rathborne Land Co. (1945)

69 state decisions

1401920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Horne v. Smith · Security Land Exploration Company v. G a Burns · French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer · State v. Buck · H. B. Sanborn & J. F. Glidden & Houston & Texas Central Railway Co. v. Gunter & Munson

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

  1. “"There are no natural monuments, such as streams, trees, etc., to guide us in this case, but defendant relies upon the artificial monument, the road, contending naturally that it must be considered as the boundary, and that the calls for area or acreage must yield to the location of the road as it actually exists. * * * "If the property (both that of plaintiff and defendant, or either of them) had been sold and described as fronting upon or bordering the public road by the descriptions in the deeds, the view that the road as it really exists should control as an artificial monument would undoubtedly be correct, and the quantity would have to yield; but in each instance the land was described according to the plat, by lot numbers, whose acreage was clearly given to the fraction of an acre, both on the plat and in the deeds, and apparently paid for at so much per acre. It would seem reasonably clear, then, that the plat, and not the road, was to govern, for the parties believed they were acquiring, and did actually acquire, their full acreage with the boundary line as it appears upon the plat." (Emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There are no natural monuments, such as streams, trees, etc., to guide us in this case, but defendant relies upon the artificial monument, the road, contending naturally that it must be considered as the boundary, and that the calls for area or acreage must yield to the location of the road as it actually exists. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Which shall control, the line as shown upon the plat, or the location of the road upon the ground?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.