Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 SO2D 843 - Euse v. Gibbs

Euse v. Gibbs’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
October 1990
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1990

1 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

6019511960197019801990decided

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 Price v. De Reyes · Watrous v. Morrison · Williams v. Pichard, Et Ux. · Kilgore v. Leary · Palm Orange Groves v. Yelvington

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

  1. ““ * * * Neither were the provisions of section 196.06, Florida Statutes 1941,. F.S.A. applicable, for the suit by the plaintiff against the defendant was not, in legal effect, a suit against a person in adverse possession as against one claiming the right of possession by virtue of the issuance of a tax deed creating a hew and independent title, but was a suit by a tax deed claimant against a person lawfully in possession of his own property which he had derived by deed and agreement fixing the boundary line of such property- — property which, in legal effect, was not covered by the description in the tax deed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In suit involving boundary line between contiguous tracts, substantial evidence sustained findings that when conveyances of tracts were made by grantors to defendant, parties agreed that fence line should constitute true line between parties and that after defendant executed a deed in 1931, he remained in actual possession of the strip of land lying between fence line and true line and that the line agreed upon by the parties became established as the true line by acquiescence and recognition.””
    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.