Boyett v. Boegner’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 85th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Kindred v. Con/Chem, Inc. · Navarette v. Temple Independent School District · Ideal Lease Service, Inc. v. Amoco Production Co. · Tempo Tamers, Inc. v. Crow-Houston Four, Ltd. · Nine Hundred Main, Inc. v. City of Houston
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he term “trade fixture” has been defined many times by the courts.... “It is now well accepted that, as between a landlord and his tenant, the term ‘trade fixtures’ refers to and means such articles as may be annexed to the realty by the tenant to enable him properly or efficiently to carry on the trade, profession, or enterprise contemplated by the tenancy contract or in which he is engaged while occupying the premises, and which can be removed without material or permanent injury to the freehold ....” It is also well established that trade fixtures are distinguished from “improvements” and other types of fixtures (i.e., personal property affixed to realty). “An improvement includes all additions to the freehold except for trade fixtures which can be removed without injury to the property.” “The class of improvements is considered to be broader than that of fixtures, which are items of personalty that have become permanent parts of the realty to which they are affixed. Therefore, although all improvements are not necessarily fixtures, any fixture, unless it is a trade fixture, is considered an improvement. A trade fixture is an item, which can be removed without material or permanent injury to the freehold, that a tenant annexes to realty to enable the tenant to carry on its business.” ... The rationale for these distinctions is that “[ijmprovements made by a vendor, mortgagor or ancestor are made to enhance the value of the estate and to be permanent, while those made by”
4 later decisions 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.