Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 162 Tex. 549 - State v. Lain

State v. Lain’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

126
cited by 126 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 116 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda (2004), Bagg v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (1987)

6 federal appellate · 116 state decisions

360196119701980199020002010decided

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 Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · United States v. Lee · Stanley v. Schwalby · Illinois Cent Co v. State of Illinois City of Chicago · Stanley v. Schwalby

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

  1. “[t]he judgment against the individuals, predicated as it is upon an incidental determination that title and right of possession is in the plaintiff, is not binding on the sovereign.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]ne who takes possession of another’s land without legal right is no less a trespasser because he is a state official or employee, and the owner should not be required to obtain legislative consent to institute a suit to oust him simply because he asserts a good faith but overzealous claim that title or right of possession is in the state and that he is acting on behalf of the state.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When suit for recovery of title to and possession of land, filed without legislative consent, is not against the state itself, but is against individuals only, the mere assertion by pleading that the defendants claim title or right of possession as officials of the state and on behalf of the state, will not bar prosecution of the suit.”
    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.