Todd v. Bruner’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman (2003), BP America Production Co. v. Marshall (2011)
2 federal appellate · 38 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 Joske v. Irvine · Phillipson v. Flynn · Moore v. Knight · Kirby Lumber Co. v. Temple Lumber Co. · Sweeten v. Park
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is not unusual for one cotenant to have exclusive possession and make beneficial use of lands for rather longer periods of time and ordinarily such use is with the acquiescence of the other cotenants.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage““In connection with the above and foregoing Special Issue you are instructed that if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that if the Defendants or those under whom they claim went into possession and occupied the tract of land in question, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that they did go into possession of the land, as a cotenant of the Plaintiffs, their possession would be presumed to have been in the right of the common title and not adverse to the other coten-ants, and not adverse to the other coten-ants unless and until they repudiated the title of their cotenants to any interest in the tract of land in controversy and then, after such repudiation, if any, held the same adversely to the title of said cotenants, if you find they did so, and until the Defendants in person or through others acting for them, gave notice of such repudiation and adverse claim, if any, to said cotenants. “Co-tenance or tenancy in common means where two or more parties own undivided interest in the same tract or tracts of land. “By ‘Notice’ is not necessarily meant actual notice of such adverse possession and claim, but such notice may be presumed to have been brought home to the Plaintiffs if the Jury finds from a preponderance of the evidence that the adverse possession, if any, and claim of title, if any, on the part of the Defendants and those under whom they claim, was open, notorious, exclusive and unequivocal and for such a length of time as to be inconsistent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Rackley v. May“The time period involved and the absence of a showing of nonclaimer fully distinguishes Moore v. Knight and Vasquez v. Meaders, 156 Tex. 28 , 291 S.W.2d 926 from the case presently before us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walker v. Walker
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.