Baker v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Lassiter v. Bliss (1977), Davis v. Huey (1981)
56 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 Werner v. Graham · Davis v. Skipper · Settegast v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co. · Berryman v. Hotel Savoy Company · Holliday v. Sphar
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Restrictive clauses in instruments concerning real estate must be construed strictly, favoring the grantee and against the grantor, and all doubt should be resolved in favor of the free and unrestricted use of the premises." Baker et al. v. Henderson et al., 137 Tex. 266 , 153 S.W.2d 465 , 470 (Tex.Com.App. 1941, opinion adopted); see also Couch et al. v. Southern Methodist University et al., 10 S.W.2d 973 (Tex.Com.App. 1928); Sumerline et ux. v. Cox et al., 344 S.W. 2d 742 (Tex.Civ.App.Eastland 1961, error ref'd).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moore v. Smith · Hunter v. Pillers““In every case where parties seek to enforce a restrictive covenant the burden of proof is upon them to establish that the covenant was imposed on defendant’s land for the benefit of land owned by them. It is also well settled that in the absence of proof that a restriction was imposed for the benefit of other land, it is construed as a personal covenant merely with the grantor. In many instances it is held that unless it is expressly shown in the conveyance itself that the restriction is imposed for the benefit of other land, or unless there is an obvious purpose to sell in accordance with a general plan, the covenant must be construed as merely a personal one.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'. . . It appears well settled that restrictions which amount to a prohibition of use of the property granted are void. Thompson on Real Property , Section 3363. . . .' Baker v. Henderson , 137 Tex. 266 , 153 S.W.2d 465 , 471 (1941). "In Moseby v. Roche , 233 Ala. 280 , 282 , 171 So. 351 (1936), this court held: "'Parties may for value voluntarily bind themselves as to the use of their property in some reasonable limited respect, which is not in general restraint of trade, or of substantially all legitimate uses of their property . . . .'”
2 later decisions 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.