20 Tenn. App. 224 - Brady v. Correll’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Any person owning any lands, ingress or egress to and from which is cut off or obstructed entirely from a public road or highway by the intervening lands of another, or who has no adequate and convenient outlet from said lands to a public road in the state, by reason of the intervening lands of another, are given the right to have an easement or right of way condemned and set aside for the benefit of such lands over and across such intervening lands or property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barge v. Sadler

2. “the nonjoinder of necessary parties to an action [could] be taken advantage of only by plea in abatement or answer, unless it appearfed] on the face of the complaint, in which case it [might] be taken advantage of by demurrer or motion in arrest of judgment.” Brady v. Correll, 20 Tenn.App. 224, 97 S.W.2d 448, 451 (1936). In discussing the effect of the failure to join necessary parties, one authority has explained that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nickas v. Capadalis

3. “Furthermore, for a landowner to condemn a right-of-way across intervening land to a public road, he need not show that he has no outlet, but only that he has no adequate and convenient one. [Citation omitted.] In other words the condemnor need not show an absolute necessity for the taking, a reasonable necessity being sufficient. [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bickel v. Hansen