Gibson v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In making a resurvey, the question is not where an entirely accurate survey would locate the lines, but where did the original survey locate such lines. Clark on Surveying and Boundaries, 2d Ed., Sec. 411, page 495; Kahn v. Delaware Securities Corporation, 114 Fla. 32 , 153 So. 308 ; LeCompte v. Lueders, 90 Mich. 495 , 51 N.W. 542 ; City of Racine v. Emerson, 85 Wis. 80 , 55 N.W. 177 ; Dittrich v. Ubl, 216 Minn. 396 , 13 N.W.2d 384 . As stated in 8 Am.Jur., Boundaries, Section 102, page 819: “The object of a resurvey is to furnish proof of the location of the lost lines or monuments, not to dispute the correctness of or to control the original survey. The original survey in all cases must, whenever possible, be retraced, since it cannot be disregarded or needlessly altered after property rights have been acquired in reliance upon it.” It is generally held, therefore, that a resurvey that changes lines and distances and purports to correct inaccuracies or mistakes in an old plat is not competent evidence of the true line fixed by the original plat, (citations omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 300 - Willis v. Campbell