Pullin v. Victor’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2012
10 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 42 Cal. 2d 235 - Union Transportation Co. v. Sacramento County · City of Billings v. Pierce Packing Co. · Village of Lee v. Harris · Creekmore v. Central Construction Co. · DiCioccio v. Town of Wethersfield
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The essential elements of a common law dedication of land are (1) an offer by the owner, clearly and unequivocally indicated by his words or acts evidencing his intention to dedicate the land to a public use, and (2) an acceptance of the offer by the public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Here, from the proof of the sale between the parties, it may be inferred that the lots ... were sold in reference to the plat of the subdivision. Such an inference could result in a finding that the dedication ... had been "accepted."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[the owner's] offer of dedication was sufficiently accepted by the public when some of its members acted upon his offer and purchased lots with reference to the plat filed [by the owner].”
1 later decision 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.