Stansell v. Tharp’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably State v. Woodroof (1950), Deese v. Odom (1969)
40 state decisions
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 Thomas v. Barnes · Baldwin v. Harrelson · West v. State Ex Rel. Matthews · Dudley v. Colonial Lumber Co. · Ashurst v. McKenzie
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The burden is not on either party as to the true location of the line in the sense that if the evidence is equally balanced he loses the controversy. While the bill sets out complainant's contention as to the location of the true line, the primary burden which complainants carry is to sustain the allegations showing the controversy, and that a situation exists which invokes the equity power of the court to find and fix the location of the line in dispute. . . . If complainants do not satisfactorily show that their contention is correct as to the true line, the cause is not due to be dismissed, nor does it necessarily result in finding according to the contention of respondent; but the court will proceed to find the true line, whether it is as either party contends."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Whenever in any action pending in the circuit court it is pertinent and material to the determination of the issue or issues therein or to the proper entering of a description in the judgment therein to establish or fix a disputed land line or boundaries between coterminous landowners, or to locate the position of a line of the government survey, or to locate a landmarker or other object, the court may, as provided in this article, direct a competent surveyor or surveyors to make a survey for the purpose of fixing or establishing the disputed land line or boundaries between coterminous landowners or of locating the position of a line of a government survey or of locating a landmarker or other object."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The trial court pursued the appropriate course in appointing an engineer as a commissioner and to become an officer of the court to make a survey and report his findings. See, Title 47, sections 5 to 12, Code of 1940; Guice v. Barr, 130 Ala. 570 , 30 So. 563 ; Ashurst v. McKenzie, 92 Ala. 484 , 9 So. 262 ; Harris v. Harris, 235 Ala. 89 , 177 So. 330 . For reasons which do not appear of record, this was not done by the engineer so appointed. A considerable period of time elapsed. We assume that' the court found. practical difficulties in having his order complied with. Smith v. Simmons, 228 Ala. 393 , 153 So. 633 . Another, and perhaps the better, course would have been to order a reference to the register, and for him to have a survey, if practicable, and, if advisable, inspect the locus personally and make report of his findings. Harley v. Chandler, 204 Ala. 207 , 85 So. 546 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCullar v. Conner
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.