Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 U.S. 252 - State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas

State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas’s Empirical Analysis

268 U.S. 252 · 1925

Citation profile

101
cited by 101 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
February 1984
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 21 district · 45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 101 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1984 · most notably Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona (1973), Harrison v. Manvel Oil Co. (1944)

27 federal appellate · 21 district · 45 state decisions

3201925193019401950196019701980decided

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 State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas · Brant v. Virginia Coal and Iron Company et al. · State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas · Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club v. United States · United States v. Lane

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

  1. ““A secondary question is whether, if the Powell survey included this strip, the present owners of that survey are estopped from claiming the strip, and therefore the royalty interest, as against the Durfee Mineral Company. * * * “The master concluded, and we agree with him, that as a whole the? evidence shows that the Durfee Company and its predecessors purchased with full knowledge of the record title * * *. In this situation the asserted estoppel must fail. Only where conduct or statements are calculated to mislead a party and are acted upon by him in good faith to his prejudice can he invoke them as a basis of such an es-toppel. And if they relate to the title of real property ‘where the condition of the title is known to both parties, or both have the same means of ascertaining the truth, there can be no estoppel.’” (Italics in all quotations ours.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.