Hexter v. Pratt’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2015
6 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 Rosenborough v. Cook · 15 Tex. Civ. App. 273 - College Park Electric Belt Line v. A. L. Ide & Son · Kuehn v. Kuehn · Kauffman & Runge v. Robey · Houston v. Timmerman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It was the duty of plaintiff in error Hexter, in person or through his" attorney, employed1 for that purpose in examining the abstracts of title, to have made the inquiry that the contents of the lis1 pendens necessarily suggested should be made, which would have, if pursued, led to the knowledge of the facts upon which the claim of title of C. E. Pratt to the lots in question rested.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hexter v. Pratt““The facts recited in the lis pendens were undoubtedly sufficient to put a reasonably prudent person on inquiry, and of such character that, if such inquiry had been pursued, plaintiff in error Hexter might have ascertained, by the exercise of proper diligence, a knowledge of all the facts constituting C. E. Pratt’s claim of title to said lots.” '”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hexter v. Pratt
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.