McBurney v. Daughety’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Texas and most jurisdictions the statute runs from the time when the fraud is discovered, unless in the exercise of reasonable diligence it might have been sooner discovered. 37 C.J. 929, § 299b, and cases cited in note 1. The rule is also well settled in Texas that, where one seeks to avoid the bar of the statute on the ground of the exercise of reasonable diligence to discover fraud, he must allege the facts upon which he relies, so that the court may determine from the pleadings whether he is entitled to the relief sought, assuming such allegations to be true; or, as is held in Bremond v. McLean, 45 Tex. 19 : ‘The mere statements in the petition that plaintiff could not have discovered that the alleged representations of defendant were false and fraudulent, by the use of reasonable diligence, evidently will not relieve him from the bar of the statute. If the want of such knowledge will prevent the running of the statute, it is not sufficient for the plaintiff to assert merely the conclusion that he could not have discerned that the representations made him were false, by the use of reasonable diligence, but he must state the facts upon which he relies, that the court may see whether they justify and support such a conclusion.’ “See, also, Kuhlman v. Baker, 50 Tex. 636 ; Brown’s Heirs v. Brown, 61 Tex. 49 ; Redd v. Brun (C.C.A.) 157 F. 192 ; Gordon v. Rhodes (Tex.Civ. App.) 117 S.W. 1025 ; East Texas Land & Improvement Co. v. Graham, 24 Tex.Civ.App. 521 , 60 S.W. 476 ; ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Port Arthur v. Tillman