Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 SW2D 214 - Schumann v. Jenkins

Schumann v. Jenkins’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2004
most recently cited

2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2004

2 state decisions

2019311940195019601970198019902000decided

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 P. J. Willis & Bro. v. Morris · Hutchins v. Masterson · Jones v. Bull · Moody v. Aiken

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.

  1. ““A fixture has been defined, in the case of Hutchins v. Masterson, 46 Tex. 551 , 26 Am.Rep. 286 , as follows: “ ‘The weight of the modern authorities establishes the doctrine that the true criterion for determining whether a chattel has become an immovable fixture, consists in the united application of the following tests: “ ‘1st. Has there been a real or constructive annexation of the article in question to the realty? “ ‘2nd. Was there a fitness or adaptation of such article to the uses or purposes of the realty with which it is connected? “ ‘3rd. Whether or not it was the intention of the party making the annexation that the chattel should become a permanent accession to the freehold? — this intention being inferable from the nature of the article, the relation and situation of the parties interested, the policy of the law in respect thereto, the mode of annexation, and purpose or use for which the annexation is made. “ ‘And of these three tests pre-eminence is to be given to the question of intention to make the article a permanent accession to the freehold, while the others are chiefly of value as evidence as to this intention.’ See Moody v. Aiken, 50 Tex. 65 ; Willis & Bro. v. Morris, 66 Tex. 628 , 1 S.W. 799 , 59 Am.Rep. 634 .””
    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.