Hines v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is the contention of the defendant in error, plaintiff below, that, if it be held that there is a conflict between said sections 9687 and 9967 [ 16 O.S. 1941 § 24; 23 O.S. 1941 § 25], said section 9687, having been enacted in 1897 at a later date than section 9967, which was enacted in 1890, would effect a modification of said section 9967 in so far as said section is in conflict with section 9687. Such is the rule. Ex parte Martin, 6 Okla. Cr. 224 , 118 P. 155 ; School District No. 7 of Johnston County v. Cunningham, 51 Okla. 261 , 151 P. 633 ; James v. Board of County Commissioners of McCurtain County, 103 Okla. 141 , 229 P. 554 . “It is also the contention of plaintiffs in error that both of these statutes, having been brought into the Revised Statutes of 1910, have an equal status as having been simultaneously passed. The authorities do not sustain this contention but hold to the contrary. 59 C.J. 928; 25 R.C.L. 925; Wright v. Oakley, 5 Metc., Mass., 400; Scheftels v. Tabert, 46 Wis. 439 , 1 N.W. 156 ; State v. Wimpfheimer, 69 N.H. 166 , 38 A. 786 ; Commonwealth v. McNamara, 93 Pa. Super. 267 ; Jessee v. De Shong (Tex. Civ. App.) 105 S.W. 1011 ; State v. Prouty, 115 Iowa, 657 , 84 N.W. 670 ; Pratt v. Swan, 16 Utah, 483 , 52 P. 1092 ; State v. Ward, 328 Mo. 658 , 40 S.W. 2d 1074 ; Hillsborough County Commissioners v. Jackson, 58 Fla. 210 , 50 So. 423 , 424, 138 Am. St. Rep. 110 , 19 Ann. Cas. 148; Adkins v. Arnold, 235 U.S. 417 , 35 S. Ct. 118, 119 , 59 L. Ed. 294 . “I”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Okla. Crim. 270 - Ex Parte Burns

2. ““The detriment caused by the breach of a covenant of seizin, of right to convey, or warranty, or of quiet enjoyment, in a grant of' an estate in real property, is deemed to be: “1. The price paid to the grantor, or, if the breach is partial only, such proportion of the price as the value of the property affected by the breach bore, at the time of the grant, to the value of the whole property. “2. Interest thereon for the time during which the grantee derived no benefit from the property, not exceeding six years; and, “3. Any expenses properly incurred by the covenantee in defending his possession.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McConnell v. Goucher

3. ““In all cases where an action is brought against a grantee to recover real estate conveyed to him by warranty deed he must notify the grantor, or person bound by the warranty, that such suit has been brought, at least twenty days before the day of trial, which notice shall be in writing and shall request such grantor or other person to defend against such action; and in case of failure to give such notice there shall be no further liability upon such warranty, except when it is clearly shown that it was impossible to make service of such notice.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McConnell v. Goucher