Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 SW 512 - Lieber v. Nicholson

Lieber v. Nicholson’s Empirical Analysis

1918

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
3
states following
December 1981
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 1981 · most notably Swanson v. Swanson (1950), Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank v. Harrison (1941)

31 state decisions

15019181920193019401950196019701980decided

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 31 Tex. Civ. App. 187 - Hollifield v. Landrum · Voight v. Mackle · Tudor v. Hodges · Curtis v. Aspinwall · 55 Tex. Civ. App. 197 - Hughes v. Adams

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

  1. ““It was incumbent upon plaintiff in error to point out all the defects which he deemed material to remedy, in order to a title of the character contracted for or a title such as he would be willing to accept. He had the right to ignore or waive defects and demand the conveyance of such title as the vendor had, the contract provision for a good title inuring to the benefit of the purchaser. 39 Cyc. 1524; Hughes v. Adams, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 197 , 119 S. W. 134 . The tender of a good record title was conditioned upon and subject to the disclosure of defects. Plaintiff in error, being in default, rendered further performance, or attempted performance, by defendants in error futile. 13 C. J. 507.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The pointing out of defects within the time was as much the duty of plaintiff in error, under the contract, as was the furnishing of the abstract the duty of the defendants in error. This provision cannot be disregarded. It is an integral part of the contract inserted with purpose. Upon the performance of this duty hinged and depended the obligation of the defendants in error to correct the defects. The defects were to be corrected when properly pointed out, and defendants in error were obligated to correct only the defects so pointed out. 39 Cyc. 1413; Hollifield v. Landrum, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 187 , 71 S. W. 979, 982 ; Curtis v. Aspinwall, 114 Mass. 187 , 19 Am. Rep. 332 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.