Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 KY 146 - Bordes v. Leece

Bordes v. Leece’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
January 1943
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 1943

11 state decisions

801919192019301940decided

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 Warden v. Addington · Amburgy v. Burt & Brabb Lumber Co. · McClanahan v. Brown · Blanton v. Howard · Houston Stanwood & Gamble Co. v. Schneider

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

  1. ““Whatever may be the rule which applies to the enforcement of a parol agreement establishing a dividing line between adjoining landowners when the exact location of the line is in donbt and the subject of dispute between the owners, and where the evidences of the true line are uncertain, and there is no question of superiority of title growing out of overlapping title papers, the same rule does not apply as when, in establishing a dividing line by parol, each of the parties gives up portions of his lands to the other, or where there are overlapping title papers, as patents and deeds, and the controversy is as to the superior title, and the true line depends upon the superior title. In the first instance a parol agreement as to the dividing line is upheld, when the line has been agreed upon and plainly marked, as it is held that such an agreement does not result in an exchange of any lands, and hence is not within the statute of frauds. In the second instance, the line must be agreed upon, and the parties take actual possession up to the line, and continue the possession for a considerable time. In the last-mentioned instance, the line must be agreed upon, and plainly marked, and acquiesced in and recognized by the parties as the true dividing line for a long or considerable period of time.” Appellees ’ proof falls far short of this requirement.”
    1 later decision 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.