Ragland v. Kelner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Much has been written upon this question, but we need cite only a few selected cases from our own jurisdiction. Our view is that, as a matter of law, Mrs. Kelner 1 delivered the deed to this property to W. A. Chenoweth, to become effective upon her death, when she manually delivered it to Mrs. Mahurin. This conclusion, we think, is required by the decisions in Henry v. Phillips, 105 Tex. 459 , 151 S.W. 533 ; Davis v. Bond, 138 Tex. 206 , 158 S.W.2d 297 ; and Earl v. Mundy, Tex. Civ.App., 227 S.W. 970 , writ refused. The conclusion is strengthened by a consideration of Eckert v. Stewart, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W. 317 , writ refused, a case in which the grantor retained the right to recall the deed at any time.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barnhart v. Epp · Amend v. Kay

2. ““From this conclusion it follows that her subsequent attempt to devise this property by will to respondent was ineffective, because title had already passed from her; and evidence that she offered it for sale, being in disparagement of her deed, was incompetent. Henry v. Phillips and Davis v. Bond, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barnhart v. Epp