Talley v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is well settled by the decisions of this court that where a person plats land and lays off lots according to such plat and makes sale of one of more of such lots with reference thereto, he irrevocably dedicates the land designated thereon as streets, alleys, avenues, and highways to the public for public uses. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Hulgan, 219 Ala. 56 , 121 So. 62 , and cases there cited.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hebert v. Trinity Presbyterian Ch. of Montgomery · Whitten v. Ferster

2. ““Indeed, the language of those sections seems to expressly confer upon a court of equity the jurisdiction and authority to vacate and annul a public way when all the owners of property attingent thereupon and the political subdivision (municipality or county) in which the said way is located are parties to the litigation. But said sections make no provision whereby compensation may be awarded to the owners of lots which abut that portion of the way to be vacated or whose lots, though not attingent upon the way to be vacated, are thereby cut off from access over some other reasonable and convenient way. “... [I]n the case of Thetford v. Town of Cloverdale, 217 Ala. 241 , 115 So. 165 , ... it was held in effect that the provisions of said section are inefficacious to empower a court of equity to vacate a public way where the owners of abutting property do not consent and no provision is made to compensate them for the property rights of which they would be deprived. ... “It is to be noted that in proceedings instituted by municipalities and counties under the terms of §§ 26-31, Title 56, Code 1940 [now Code 1975, § 23-4-1, et seq.], to vacate streets, alleys, etc., provision is made for compensating those who are injured by said vacation. But no such provision is found in §§ 21-25, Title 56, Code 1940 [now Code 1975, § 35-2-58, et seq.].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Turner v. Hoehn

3. ““This cause having come on to be heard on the 20th and 21st days of May, 1986, the parties having appeared with their respective attorneys, and the Court having taken testimony ore tenus and the Court having considered the same, it is “ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that that certain street designated as Orange Street as shown on re-subdivision of Blocks 30, 31 and 32 of Perdi-do Beach as per map or plat thereof recorded in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Baldwin County, Alabama in Map Book 1, Page 18, is a properly dedicated public right-of-way. “It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the pier constructed on Orange Street and extending to and over Palmetto Creek is properly permitted and is deemed to be a public pier for use and enjoyment by the general public. “It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment is hereby entered in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff[s] on all Counts in the Complaint.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 507 So. 2d 494 - Templeman v. Resmondo