Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 SW 609 - Davis v. Howe

Davis v. Howe’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
2
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Nelson v. Krusen (1984), Thompson v. Richardson (1920)

29 state decisions

601919192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Rosenborough v. Cook · Rutherford v. Carr · Schleicher, Admr. v. Gatlin · Wofford v. McKinna · Kuhlman v. Baker

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

  1. “For the purpose of limitation, it is wholly immaterial that the deed conveys no title. An instrument in the form of a deed not void on its face, even though the grantor be wholly without title, satisfies the requirement of the statute.... The whole object of the statute in requiring a deed and its due registration is to define the boundaries of the claim and give notice to the true owner of such adverse claim. This is accomplished by any apparently valid instrument having the essential parts of a deed. That the deed is in fact void is immaterial. So, likewise, is the ground of its invalidity. The sole inquiry is whether the instrument is a deed within the purview of the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is thus clear that a deed under the law governing five years' limitation has a character distinct from that of an effectual muniment of title. For the purpose of such limitation it performs an office unrelated to title, and although as a conveyance of title it may be futile. That office is simply to aid the possession as a means of notice of the adverse claim to the land.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If any officer making sale of property on execution, or his deputy, shall, directly or indirectly, purchase the same, the sale shall be void.”
    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.