Payne v. Priddy’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1988
4 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 Pearson v. Doherty · Stewart v. Luhning Et Ux. · O'Meara v. Williams · Pasha v. Schell · Gleckler v. Denton
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Doherty contends that the evidence in this case entitles him to a judgment awarding him the title and possession of this land because it shows conclusively that Pearson did not claim adversely as against the true or real owner, and therefore shows that Pearson has not acquired title by the Ten Year Statute of Limitation. We overrule this contention. In our opinion the evidence contained in this record raises a fact issue on the question of adverse claim and possession. It is true that Pearson, in his deposition taken before the trial, stated that he was not trying to take this land away from those who owned it; but at the trial itself Pearson testified that since 1925 he had never acknowledged that any other person than himself owned this land, and that since 1925 he had always claimed it for himself. The record in this condition presents a fact question. Stewart v. Luhning, 134 Tex. 23 , 131 S.W.2d 824 ; O’Meara v. Williams, Tex.Civ.App., 137 S.W.2d 66 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bounds v. Taylor““In the instant case the testimony of Cox relied upon by plaintiffs, viewed in the light of all his testimony, at most, merely raised a fact issue as to whether he claimed the disputed strip adversely from the time of the erection of the fence. Liles v. Sawyer, Tex.Civ.App., 257 S.W. 2d 512 ; Pearson v. Doherty, supra; Pasha v. Schell, Tex.Civ.App., 229 S.W.2d 818 , error ref.; Gleckler v. Denton, Tex.Civ.App., 149 S.W.2d 213 , dismissed, correct judgment; 2 Tex.Jur.2d pp. 188-191, §§ 90-91.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bounds v. Taylor
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.