Foster v. Foster’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 2011
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hough v. Porter · Messick v. Midland Railway Co. · Curtis v. La Grande Hydraulic Water Co. · North Powder Milling Co. v. Coughanour · Shaw v. Proffitt
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has been held in this state that a parol license to do some act upon the servient estate cannot be revoked after the licensee, relying upon the faith thereof, has expended money or performed labor in making valuable and permanent improvements upon real property: Coffman v. Robbins, 8 Or. 278 ; Huston v. Bybee, 17 Or. 140 ( 20 Pac. 51 , 2 L. R. A. 568): Combs v. Slayton, 19 Or. 99 ( 26 Pac. 661 ); Curtis v. La Grande Water Co., 20 Or. 34 ( 23 Pac. 808 , 25 Pac. 378 , 10 L. R. A. 404 (484); McBroom v. Thompson, 25 Or. 559 ( 37 Pac. 57 , 42 Am. St. Rep. 806 ); Garrett v. Bishop, 27 Or. 349 ( 41 Pac. 10 ). But such license must result from some consideration paid by the licensee, or some benefit accruing to the licensor # # 33”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clasen v. Kennedy
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.