Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 MASS 184 - Jeffries v. Jeffries

Jeffries v. Jeffries’s Empirical Analysis

1875

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
13
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Joy v. City of St Louis (1891), Moore v. . Williams (1889)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 53 state decisions — followed in 13 states

130187518801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Linzee v. Mixer · Sharp v. Ropes · Hayes v. Harmony Grove Cemetery · Dana v. Wentworth

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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is not necessary that . . . (the buyer) should satisfy the court that the title is defective so that he ought to prevail at law; it is enough if it appears to be subject to adverse claims which are of such a nature as may reasonably be expected to expose the purchaser to controversy to maintain his title, or rights incident thereto. . . . “He ought not to be subjected against his agreement or consent, to the necessity of litigation to remove even that which is only a cloud upon his title.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The .effect of this proceeding in equity, if the plaintiff [the vendor] should prevail, would be to require the defendant to accept as perfect a title which he may hereafter be compelled to defend against incumbrances now pointed out, the validity and effect of which cannot now be conclusively determined as against future litigants who may seek to''enforce them.””
    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.