Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 So. 2d 786 - Selfe v. Travis

29 So. 2d 786 - Selfe v. Travis’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2013

9 state decisions

4019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Williams v. Bernstein · Harper v. Learned · Simmons v. Miller · Blanc v. Duplessis, F. M. C. · Kittridge v. Landry

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

  1. “"Lastly, plaintiff contends and argues that parol testimony was inadmissible to prove that which the public records do not disclose. He invokes the provisions of Articles Nos. 2266 and 2276 of the Revised Civil Code, which read as follows: ‘“All sales, contracts and judgments affecting immovable property, which shall not be so recorded, shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto. The recording may be made at any time, but shall only affect third persons from the time of the recording. “ ‘The recording shall have effect from the time when the act is deposited in the proper office, and indorsed by the proper officer.’ ” * * ■ * * * * “ ‘Neither shall parol evidence be admitted against or beyond what is contained in the acts, nor on what may have been said before, or at the time of making them, or since.’ “Reference to decisions of the courts of this state citing, construing and applying these articles is made. “The establishment by survey of a boundary line by owners of adjoining lands does not create, destroy nor confer title. Such action is resorted to to definitely determine the limits of pre-existing ownership in such way that each owner may know how far his ownership extends and where his neighbor’s begins. “The provisions and prohibitions of the quoted articles do not invariably extend to agreements whereby boundary lines are established by mutual agreement of adjoining owners. The facts and circumstances of each case, in a large measure, determine”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “But the judgment signed by Judge O'Neal is not susceptible of such construction. It is unambiguous and controls over the minutes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.