Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 SW 185 - Hovel v. Kaufman

Hovel v. Kaufman’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
June 1977
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 1977 · most notably Willoughby v. Jones (1952), Nunn v. Feltinton (1961)

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

60192619301940195019601970decided

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 Ogden & Johnson v. Bosse · Rice v. St. Louis, Arkansas & Texas Railway Co. · Howard v. Masterson · Simmons Hardware Co. v. Davis · Keys v. Mason

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

  1. ““The correct rule is that, whenever a plaintiff, in a suit in trespass to try title, undertakes to sustain his claim of title by proof of common source, he must show, in order to make a prima facie case for himself, not only that both he and the defendant claim title under a common source, but also must show that the title emanating from the common source which the plaintiff claims is superior to that claimed by defendant, and that plaintiff holds such title. * * * ” (Emphasis added). ****** “The plaintiff in error having failed to show, before she rested her case, that she held the title to the land, the defendant in error was not placed under the necessity of introducing any proof at all, and the trial court properly instructed a verdict for the latter.””
    1 later decision 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.