Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 TENNAPP 90 - Davidson County v. Beauchesne

Davidson County v. Beauchesne’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2015

8 state decisions

401955196019701980199020002010decided

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 Condit v. Bigalow · Doty v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Central Realty Co. v. City of Chattanooga · Battle v. Claiborne · Chumbley v. State

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. ““We think plaintiff was estopped by her deed to maintain this suit or to deny the above recital. Estoppels are three kinds: (1) by record, (2) by deed, and (3) by matter in pais. ‘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.’ 19 Am.Jur., Estoppel, sec. 6, p. 603. “ ‘ “A fact admitted by recital, or directly in a covenant or deed, concludes all the parties to it, and cannot be averred against.” Henderson v. Overton, 10 Tenn. 394 -397, 24 Am.Dec., 492.’ Battle v. Claiborne, 133 Tenn. 286, 302 , 180 S.W. 584 , 588. “ ‘ “Estoppel by warranty is based on the fundamental principles of giving effect to the manifest intention of the grantor, appearing on the deed, as to the lands or estate to be conveyed, and of preventing the grantor’s derogating from or destroying his own grant by any subsequent act.” Condit v. Bigalow, 64 N.J.Eq. 504 (513), 54 A. 160 .’ Battle v. Claiborne, supra, 133 Tenn. 303 , 180 S.W. 588 .””
    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.