Seay v. Cockrell’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 1987 · most notably Davis v. First National Bank of Waco (1942), Federal Land Bank v. Little (1937)
2 federal appellate · 51 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.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is argued strenuously in behalf of appellant that because these provisions are found in a will and not in a deed they must receive a more liberal construction than if they were found in an instrument of the latter character. It is possible this rule may be correct, yet, under the provision which brings it so clearly within the rule in question, we fail to see that there is any room for construction in applying the rule in Shelley’s Case as commonly laid down; and, unless the will shows very clearly that the rule ought not to apply, it must be followed. We do not know how to argue what appears to us so plain a proposition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Crist v. Morgan““The prohibition against the devisees selling the property is void. It is clearly a restraint upon alienation.... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gray v. Vandver
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.