Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 N.Y. 37 - Herman v. . Roberts

Herman v. . Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

1890

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
17
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan Land & Water Co. (1941), Winslow v. City of Vallejo (1906)

5 federal appellate · 76 state decisions — followed in 17 states

180189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Onthank v. . L.S. and M.S.R.R. Co. · Bakeman v. . Talbot · Long v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co. · Bliss v. . Greeley · Renard v. . Sampson

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

  1. ““It cannot be assumed, in the absence of any provisions looking thereto in the grant, that the grantor intended to reserve any use of the land which should limit or disturb the full and unrestricted enjoyment of the easement granted. The purpose contemplated by the grant was the creation of an easement for the plaintiff's use, and not the reservation to the owner of the use of his land. Every use by the owner was abandoned, except such as might he made in a mode entirely consistent with the full and undisturbed enjoyment by the grantee of the easement. The idea of a joint use of the land by both parties, in the sense that a use by the grantee should at any time give way to a use by the grantor, is contrary to the plain meaning and intent of the grant.””
    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.