Buchanan v. Crites’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2021
12 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 Reeder v. Purdy · Walker v. Chanslor · Sterling v. Warden · Harper v. Sallee · Entelman v. Hagood
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Most American jurisdictions, including Utah, have enacted Forcible Entry and Detainer Statutes. In states having such statutes the prevailing view is that ‘a landlord who is entitled to possession must, on the refusal of the tenant to surrender the premises; resort to the remedy given by law to secure it.’ 45 A.L.R. 313 , 316. If the landlord, contrary to the terms of such a statute enters by force without resort to legal process, he is by statute made civilly liable to the dispossessed tenant. We held in Paxton v. Fisher, 86 Utah 408 , 45 P.2d 903, 906 , that under the Forcible Entry and De-tainer Statutes, 104-60-1, ff. U.C.A. 1943: ‘Even rightful owners should not take the law into their own hands and proceed to recover possession by violence, or by entry in the nighttime, or during the absence of the occupants of any real property.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * Under our statute any entry by force is prohibited. Being prohibited, such entry was wrongful and the aggrieved party has his remedy. The Forcible Entry Statute expressed a policy that no person should enter by force, stealth, fraud or intimidation, premises of which another had peaceable possession. This had the effect of taking away the common law right of a landlord to possess his own property by no more force than was necessary and left the one against whom force was used to pursue his common law action. Whether the plaintiff would have had a right to bring an action under the Forcible Entry Statute we need not consider. Is suffices that he did not in this case do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“included all statutes in effect in England at the time of the adoption.”
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.