Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 Tex. 130 - Schultz v. Shatto

Schultz v. Shatto’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably State Farm Lloyds, Inc. v. Polasek (1992), Bill Jones v. Hubbard (1957)

43 state decisions

1501951196019701980199020002010decided

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 Bruni v. Vidaurri · Davis v. Davis · 45 Tex. Civ. App. 179 - Brewer v. Cochran · El Paso Electric Railway Co. v. Lee · Gilder v. City of Brenham

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

  1. “It is shown that from 1869 down to the time the respondent secured a deed to the land in controversy — August 26, 1948 — -no claim was ever made to this land by anyone, nor was there any interference with the public’s use of the land as a street. Since 1927, (when the city was incorporated) it was testified by the city manager and by a member of the City Council that the city had worked this as a street, putting gravel on it, dragging it, and keeping down the weeds on it. The city built and paid for a sidewalk in front of this land along Milam Street, and inclined the walk so traffic could easily pass over and onto the tract of land. This is the only sidewalk in that block paid for by the city. The evidence shows that a delivery man, in servicing the places of business fronting on this passageway as well as other buildings, and the rears of which were reached by using this passageway, has driven over this passageway daily for 20 years prior to the trial.... Evidence was introduced showing this property was used as a passageway by the public as far back as 1894 and continuously since that time, and without any adverse claim or obstructions until 1948 after respondent secured his deed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The existence of a lost map or plan may be proven by secondary evidence, the same as any other lost instrument. It was a fact question to be determined by the trier of the facts—in this case the trial judge.... We think these documents were admissible as ancient instruments and their recitals were admissible as circumstances showing the dedication. . .. As evidence of a claim of ownership, recitals in ancient instruments are admissible over the objection that they are hearsay or self-serving....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The use of lands of another by the public as a roadway, with the acquiescence of the landowner, will not ripen into a prescriptive right, no matter what period of time such use may continue, unless the evidence shows, circumstantially or otherwise, that the use was by claim of right adverse to the landowner, of which adverse claim the latter has notice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.