Pierce v. Mays’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1995
7 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 D. Sullivan & Co. v. Texas Briquette & Coal Co. · Schmid, Recr. v. Nat'l. Bank · Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Parker · Texas Co. v. Tucker · Tomlinson v. Higginbotham Bros. & Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I find that the Plaintiff, W. A. Mays, thereafter advanced to and for the benefit of the Defendant J. S. Pierce the sum of $11,000.00 represented by such note, $10,000.00 of which was used by the said J. S. Pierce in paying for labor and material in erecting the improvements upon Lots 15, 16 and 17, each inclusive, in Block 5 of Denver Heights Annex, an addition to the City of Amarillo, Potter County, Texas, with the other $1,000.00 thereof being used for extraneous purposes. “I find that at the time the material was furnished and the labor performed by the various Defendants, the deed of trust lien of Plaintiff securing the indebtedness due the Plaintiff as evidenced by such $11,000.00 deed of trust note had been duly filed of record, and the Defendants were thereby put upon notice that any permanent improvements which might be placed upon the lands covered by such deed of trust and which could not be removed therefrom without injury thereto, would be subject to a sale as a part of the real estate in payment of the Plaintiff’s debt, and that the improvements placed upon such lands were permanent improvements and could not be removed from the lands without injury thereto, and could not, therefore, be separated or removed from the land. jfc v “I find that the proceeds of the loan evidenced by the $11,000.00 note bearing date of May 3, 1951, executed by J. S. Pierce and payable to the Plaintiff, W. A. Mays, was paid by the Plaintiff, W. A. Mays, to the Defendant, J. S. Pierce,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mays v. Pierce
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.