State v. Balli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““No one knows the extent of the accretion with any certainty. The only definite proof as to the area of the is-, land at the time of the grant is, the de la Fuente survey. As to lands now forming part of the island but lying outside this survey, the State should recover as no rebuttal was made to its prima facie title as to such lands. * * * “As heretofore stated, the State described the island by field notes prepared by J. S. Boyles. The survey was based upon what Boyles considered• the line of mean high tide. The judgment of the court was to the effect that the State had no interest in' and to the lands enclosed by Boyles’ survey. Although no survey was made of a- line purporting to be the line of high winter tide, the State contends that the grant is limited by this line under the civil law in force in Tamaulipas at the time of the grant, and consequently the State should have judgment, for that land lying between the line of winter high tide and mean tide. Appellees counter with the proposition that the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that there is no substantial difference in fact between the line of high winter tide and .the line actually surveyed by Boyles. This position must be sustained. The difference, if any, is purely theoretical. We are here dealing with an island having a perimeter of 238 miles, the sands that compose that island and the waters of the sea. “According to Boyles, the theoretical difference in elevation between mean high tide for the wh”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Luttes v. State

2. ““That the common law of England (so far as it ⅛ not inconsistent with the constitution or the acts of Congress now in force), shall, together with such acts, be the rule of decision in this republic, and shall continue in full force until altered or repealed by Congress. “That all laws in force in this republic prior to the first of September, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six (except the laws of the consultation and provisional government, now in force, and except such laws as relate exclusively to grants and the colonization of lands in the State of Coahuila and Texas, and also such laws as relate to the reservation of islands and lands, and also of salt-lakes, licks and salt-springs, mines and minerals of every description, made by the general and state governments) be, and the same are hereby repealed.” 2 Gammel 177-178.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Giles v. Ponder

3. ““. . . Both are photostatic copies of the protocol, certified to as correct by El Presidente Municipal (Mayor) of the City of Matamoros and attested by the secretary. Both copies also bear the certificate of the Consul of the United States of America at Matamoros, Mexico, to the effect that the signatures of the Mayor and Secretary are genuine and that such persons are in truth the Mayor and Secretary of the Municipality of Matamoros to whose official acts faith and credit are due. The Consul further certified that the copies had ‘been issued by the lawful custodian of the original document extant in the archives of the Municipality of Matamoros for the years 1827-1830’.” (Emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wood v. Paulus