Brooks v. Tanner’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Herrera v. Roman Catholic Church (1991), Gallup Westside Development, LLC v. City of Gallup (2003)
4 federal appellate · 42 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.
Relationships
Relies on Shaeffer v. Kelton · Hester v. Sawyers · Farmington National Bank v. Basin Plastics, Inc. · STATE, BY & THROUGH DEPT. OF HYS. v. Helehan · Schultz & Lindsay Construction Co. v. State
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“SUBJECT also to a road easement granted to Hazel Calverley along and over the Southerly twelve (12’) feet of the above described property, recorded in Book D-598, page 80, Records of Bernalillo County, New Mexico; and Owner hereby reserves an easement for road purposes over the Southerly twelve (12’) feetofthe above described property for use in connection with that portion of Lots 140 and 141 of Monticello and not included in this sale and for ingress and egress from his property to Monticello Drive which easement shall be left open.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dethlefsen v. Weddle““A way of necessity can only arise where an owner of property severs a portion of his property and the portion retained or sold is cut off from access to a public route by the land from which it was severed.” The fundamental requirement of common ownership[ ] is lacking in the instant case. There is no proof that Seller ever owned the [dominant] tract in addition to the [servient] lots he owned in the [subdivision, or that he conveyed or retained portions thereof in a manner which would landlock the [dominant] tract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hurlocker v. Medina
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.