Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 Okla. 141 - Smith v. Williams

Smith v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2018

5 state decisions

201928193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Simon Taylor v. Joe Anderson · Mullen v. United States · Goat v. United States · Work v. United States ex rel. McAlester-Edwards Co. · Franklin v. Lynch

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.

  1. “The rule seems to be well established in this state that the purchaser of real estate is not bound to take notice of registered liens or deeds created or executed by any person other than those through whom he is compelled to deraign his title. Perkins v. Cissell , [ 1912 OK 399 ], 124 P. 7 ; Reigel v. Wood , [ 1924 OK 113 ], 229 P. 556 . In the latter case, it was said: "The grantee is not required to take notice of conveyances not within his chain of title or those conveyances through which the purchaser is not compelled to deraign his title." [ Reigel , ¶ 2 ].”
    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.