Miller v. Stovall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(a) In the following cases every agreement shall be void unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith: * * * (v) Every agreement or contract for the sale of real estate, or the lease thereof, for more than one (1) year.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Maycock · Hovendick v. Ruby

2. “[the contract for the sale of real estate as contemplated by the statute is one for the transfer of property or real estate, for a fixed price in money or its equivalent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Estate of Maycock · Hovendick v. Ruby

3. “It is well settled that parties may make an express parol agreement as to a boundary line. But, to have a basis for consideration, it must be in dispute or uncertain and not readily ascertainable, and, to take it out of the statute of frauds, it must be followed up by occupancy by the parties in accordance with such agreement, up to the line agreed on. It would seem that the elements of mistake involved, both in es-toppel as well as adverse possession, are eliminated in a ease when parties deliberately enter into an agreement under such conditions, in the absence of special circumstances which would relieve a party from a mistake, because want of knowledge of the true boundary, and uncertainty thereof, is made the very basis of the agreement. The doctrine of recognition and acquiescence would seem to be based primarily, though not solely, upon the same principles as an express agree-ment_ However, ... an agreement to fix an uncertain or disputed boundary need not be express, but may be implied, and may be shown by the conduct of the parties. [[Image here]] ... [T]he existence of a division fence does not alone show the requisite facts. It may be kept up only for the convenience of the parties. But we think we may safely say that when there is recognition and acquiescence of the parties in a boundary line, uncertain or in dispute in the first instance, for a period equal at least to the prescriptive period, under facts and circumstances which should be considered equivalent to”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kimball v. Turner