Holtzman v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 44 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Payment of tbe taxes, as described in tbe above statement of facts, is very Important and strong evidence of a claim of title; and tbe failure of the plaintiffs’ predecessors to make any claim to the lot or to pay tbe taxes themselves is some evidence of an abandonment of any right in or claim to the property. In Ewing v. Burnet, 11 Pet. 41 [ 9 L. Ed. 624 ], it was held by this court that the payment of taxes on land for 24 successive years by tbe party in possession was powerful evidence of tbe claim of right to tbe whole lot upon which the taxes were paid.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oregon & C. R. v. Grubissich · 937 So. 2d 983 - Wicker v. Harvey

2. ““It was testified on behalf of the defendants that some time in the latter part of the same year, 1865, one Richard Rothwell, a stonecutter and builder, who owned and occupied an adjoining lot, deposited upon the rear of the lot in controversy some pontoons, which he had purchased from the United States, and which he stored there until he could malee some disposition of them; and that he afterwards used a part of this lot for the deposit of stone and marble which he used in his business. He testified that he had deposited three or four wagon-loads of marble there as early as the year 1867, and that some of the pontoons remained in the lot four or five years. He also testified that, m the year 1870, he commenced to deposit stone there in large quantities; and that in 1872 he erected a small shed on the lot in which to carry on his work, and which he replaced with a larger structure in or about the year 1882. . . . Although there was no fence around this lot during the period in question, yet it was occupied by the tenant for the purpose of his business, that of marble and stone cutting; and although every foot of the property was not covered by his material, yet it was placed upon the lot in a convenient manner to be used by him in the prosecution of his business, and in a manner which showed that his possession was not in connection with any others, but was exclusive and perfect in himself. . . . We agree with the court below when, through Mr. Justice Morris, it says that: ‘S”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bingham Livery & Transfer Co. v. McDonald