Ray v. Blackwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “"The legal issue is whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that this defendant was in possession of the rig at the time of the filing of this suit. "A number of Alabama cases hold that, in order for the plaintiff to be successful in a detinue action, the plaintiff must prove, as of the time he filed his case, that he had a general or special property right in the chattel sued for, that he had a right to its immediate possession, and that the defendant had possession of the property. For examples, see Galleon Industries, Inc. v. Lewyn Machinery Co. , 50 Ala.App. 334 , 279 So.2d 137 , cert. denied , 291 Ala. 779 , 279 So.2d 142 (1973); and Chrysler Credit Corporation v. Tremer , 48 Ala. App. 675 , 267 So.2d 467 (1972). "On the other hand, other Alabama cases state that the legal title to personal property and the right to its immediate possession are sufficient to support an action of detinue. For example, see Cornelius v. Copeland , 274 Ala. 337 , 148 So.2d 620 (1963). "One probable reason for any apparent conflict in those two lines of cases was occasioned by a prior code section as to the effect of a plea of the general issue in a detinue case. It was provided in Title 7, Section 934, of the Codes of 1940 and 1958 that, where a defendant filed a plea of the general issue, such plea admitted the possession of the suit property by the defendant at the commencement of the suit. Chrysler Credit Corporation , supra. That code section is not included in the 1975 Code”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 23 - Friedman v. Friedman

2. “The legal issue is whether it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that this defendant was in possession of the rig at the time of the filing of this suit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 23 - Friedman v. Friedman