Scott v. Cannon’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Holmstrom v. Lee (2000), Pinebrook Properties, Ltd. v. Brookhaven Lake Property Owners Ass'n (2002)
29 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 274th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Relies on Holley v. Watts · Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc. · Othen v. Rosier · Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala County · F. J. Harrison & Co. v. Boring
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The owner of land may create an easement by a parol agreement or representation which has been so acted on by others as to create an estoppel in pais. As where he has by parol agreement granted a right of such easement in his land, upon the faith of which the other party has expended moneys which will be lost and valueless if the right to enjoy such easement is revoked, equity has enjoined the owner of the first estate from preventing the use of it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stallman v. Newman“rare and nebulous” in circumstances other than the three circumstances described by the Texas Supreme Court in Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196, 209-10 (Tex.1962):(1) a dedication of a street, alley or square; (2) an owner selling land with reference to a map or plat; and (3) a seller of land who allows its purchaser to expend money on an alleged”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Cockrell“(1) the landowner induced the belief that the landowner intended to dedicate the [property] to public use; (2) the landowner was competent to do so; (3) the public relied on the landowner’s actions and will be served by the dedication; and (4) there was an offer and acceptance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Van Dam v. Lewis
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.