Schwarz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2016
12 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin))
Relationships
Relies on Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · Central Transp Co v. Pullman's Palace Car Co · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Soderberg · Heinatz v. Allen · Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina
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.
“The rule is also well settled that legislative grants of property, rights, or privileges must be construed strictly in favor of the state on grounds of public policy, and whatever is not unequivocally granted in clear and explicit terms is withheld. Any ambiguity or obscurity in the terms of the statute must operate in favor of the state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If there is an express conveyance of a specific substance, or some other controlling rule of construction indicating a different intent, we are not bound to follow the Acker and Reed presumption.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[V]aluable deposits of kaolin, baryta, salt, marble, fire clay, iron ore, coal, oil, natural gas, gypsum, nitrates, mineral paints, asbestos, marl, natural cement, clay, onyx, mica, precious stones or any other non-metallic mineral and stones valuable for ornamental or building purposes or other valuable building material, in legal subdivisions in quantity not exceeding one section: Provided that where any such parties shall have heretofore expended, or shall hereafter expend, five thousand dollars in developing the aforesaid mineral resources of any of said lands, such party shall have the right to buy one additional section and no more, and to include in the purchase any section or part thereof on which the work may have been done....; [A]nd all said lands are reserved from sale or other disposition than under this act; and where application is made to buy any of the lands herein named except under this act, the purchaser shall swear that there are none of the minerals named in this act on said lands, so far as he knows or has reason to believe or does believe: Provided, further, that any party hereinbe-fore named, who shall prior to the passage of this act, have been the first to work on said lands for the development of said mineral resources, ... shall have a prior preference right of doing so for thirty days after this act goes into effect: Provided, further, this section of this act shall not authorize the sale of lands containing valuable deposits of gold, silver, lea”
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.