Collora v. Navarro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 200 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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule as generally stated is that the plaintiff is entitled to a directed verdict when reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion from the evidence. The task of an appellate court in such a case is to determine whether there is any evidence of probative force to raise fact issues on the material questions presented. The court must consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was instructed, discarding all contrary evidence and inferences. Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 544 S.W.2d 649 (Tex.1976); Echols v. Wells, 510 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.1974). When reasonable minds may differ as to the truth of controlling facts, the issue must go to the jury. Najera v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 146 Tex. 367 , 207 S.W.2d 365 (1948).”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Qantel Business Systems, Inc. v. Custom Controls Co. · Southeastern Resources Corp. v. Kincaid

2. ““The ordinary case for the acquisition of title by adverse possession, when the use is grazing, is one in which the person claiming title under the statute has built a fence or fences enclosing the land and has maintained the enclosure and continuously used the land for grazing during the statutory period. Such construction of fences and use of the land for grazing afford evidence of hostile claim. Petitioner would bring this case within that general rule. “We agree, however, with the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals that the facts of this case take it out of that general rule and bring it under the principle announced in the following cases, that when the disputed tract of land has been casually or incidentally enclosed with other land, especially when, as here, such other land is held by the possessor under deed, the incidental enclosure and the occasional grazing of the disputed tract by cattle straying from the titled land will not amount to such adverse and hostile possession and use as will support the statute of limitations””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mallett v. Wheat

3. “But the testimony of an interested party or witness is not wholly without probative force. An instructed verdict based thereon favorable to the party with whom the witness is identified is proper when the testimony pertains to matters reasonably capable of exact statement, and is clear, direct and positive, is internally devoid of inconsistencies and contradictions, and is uncontra-dicted either by the testimony of other witnesses or by circumstances—in short, when there is nothing to cause any reasonable suspicion as to its truth.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. CPS International, Inc. v. Harris & Westmoreland