Dunn v. Deussen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““ * * * In the Owens case the Supreme Court quoted with approval from Brown v. Kelley, Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 834 , by this court: ‘ “However, the theory of implied dedication carries with it the idea that the owner consented to the use of his land as highway to the extent that the court will hold that he dedicated it to public use, whether by express words, overt acts, or even by such inaction on the part of the owner as would justify a conclusion that he intended to dedicate his land to public use!” ’ “A dedication may be shown by circumstances. Owens v. Hockett, supra.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garza v. Garza · Mallett v. Houston Contracting Company

2. ““ * * * where origin of the user by the public, and the ownership of the land at the time of such origin, are shrouded in obscurity, and no proof can ' be adduced to show the intention of the owner in allowing the use, the law raises a presumption that the requisite intention and acts disclosing it were present.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McMullen v. King · O'CONNOR v. Gragg

3. ““Common law dedications, such as the one here involved, are subdivided into two classes, express and implied. This dedication falls in the latter class. The unequivocal acts and conduct of the petitioner, O’Connor, and his predecessors in title, show an implied intention to appropriate the roadway to public use. * If the open and known acts are of such a character as to induce the belief that the owner intended to dedicate the way to public use, and the public and individuals act upon such conduct, proceed as if there had been in fact a dedication, and acquire rights which would be lost if the owner were allowed to reclaim the land, then the law will not permit him to assert that there was no intent to dedicate * * Elliott, Roads and Streets (2d Ed.), Sec. 124, p. 121.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garza v. Garza