Lucus v. Cowan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘Estoppel by deed is a bar which precludes one party to a deed and his privies from asserting as against the other party and his privies any right or title in derogation of the deed or from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it. Estoppel by deed is technical in nature, and such an estoppel may conclude a party without any reference to the moral qualities of his conduct. * * * * * * “ ‘To constitute an estoppel by deed, a distinct and precise assertion or admission of a fact is necessary. Hence, an estoppel by deed or similar instrument can arise only where a party has conveyed a precise or definite, legal estate or right by a solemn assurance which he will not be permitted to vary or deny. Such estoppel should be certain to every intent.’ “This doctrine has been adopted into our statutes as Sec. 17, 16 O.S. 1951 , as follows: “ ‘All rights of a mortgagor or grantor in and to the premises described in the instrument and existing at the time or subsequently accruing, shall accrue to the benefit of the mortgagee or grantee, and be covered by his mortgage or conveyed by his deed, as the case may be.’ ^ ^ “In order that a deed may give rise to an estoppel, it must contain representations or covenants; * X x-»”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Callahan v. Stewart · Singer-Fleischaker Royalty Co. v. Whisenhunt

2. ““It is settled law in Oklahoma that a grantor who conveys a mineral interest in land under warranty of title, which land is subject to a mortgage and which the grantor is obligated to satisfy, but thereafter permits the property to be sold at a mortgage foreclosure, subsequent reacquisition of such property by said grantor operates to revest immediately the after-acquired title in grantee and will inure to his benefit. Grisham v. Southland Royalty Company, supra ( 332 P.2d 1099 ) ; Marx v. Beard, supra ( 302 P.2d 132 ); Equitable Royalty Corp. v. Hullet, supra ( 206 Okl. 233 , 243 P.2d 986 ) ; Planlon v. McClain, 206 Okl. 227 , 242 P.2d 732 ; Bliss v. Wilcox Oil Co., 206 Okl. 232 , 242 P.2d 739 ; Triangle Royalty Corp. v. Graves, supra ( 206 Okl. 409 , 242 P.2d 740 ); Born v. Bentley, 207 Okl. 21 , 246 P.2d 738 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Callahan v. Stewart · Singer-Fleischaker Royalty Co. v. Whisenhunt

3. “Since the title in the cause at bar re-vested in [grantee] by law and by right when [grantor] reacquired the quarter section subsequent to the foreclosure, neither [grantee] nor his heirs were under any duty to ‘perfect’ their right by an action to quiet title. The prior deed continued to serve as a valid muniment of [grantee’s] outstanding interest in the minerals.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wood v. Sympson