Griffing v. Taft’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently October 1998 · most notably Buillard v. Davis (1936), Yuges Realty, Ltd. v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc. (1944)
5 federal appellate · 93 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 Board of Com'rs v. Concordia Land & Timber Co. · Quaker Realty Co. v. Labasse · Slattery v. Heilperin · Cordill v. Quaker Realty Co. · Cochran v. Gulf Refining Co.
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The institution of a suit claiming title to property by inheritance from a deceased person is an unconditional acceptance of his succession. Rev.Civ.Code, art. 988; * * *. An heir who manifests an intention of accepting the succession unconditionally — that is, without the benefit of inventory — by doing an act which he would have no right to do except as an unconditional heir (Rev.Civ.Code, art. 988), makes himself liable for the obligations of the deceased person whose succession he has thus accepted. Rev.Civ. Code, arts. 1013, 1423. Therefore the plaintiff in a suit claiming title to property by inheritance from a deceased person, and thereby manifesting the intention of accepting unconditionally the succession of the deceased person, has no right of action to recover the property if his deceased ancestor, in disposing of the property, obligated himself to warrant and defend the title. * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While the plaintiffs assert that Jabish Griffing was the owner of this property during these years, they have filed in the record no title to him from the Union Bank, nor, from any subsequent owner, to prove this assertion. The mere assessment to Jabish Griffing of this property... did not constitute him the owner per se.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Scobee v. Brame““Act 38 of 1908 was intended as a particular form of action to adjudicate titles to real estate, where neither of the claimants is in actual possession of the land. In such action the judge is called upon to decide which of the claimants is the owner of the land in dispute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dugas v. Powell
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.