Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 MINN 386 - Shane v. Jacobson

Shane v. Jacobson’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
January 1985
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1985

6 state decisions

2019171920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Bullitt v. Farrar · Redding v. Godwin · Reynolds v. Franklin · Wallace v. Hallowell · Mountain v. Day

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

  1. “When the deceit in the sale of land relates merely to the existence thereon of an improvement which, at a cost readily ascertainable, may without difficulty be made at any time, the recovery in an action for damages should not exceed the cost of making the improvements (unless special damages are claimed and proven), when it is apparent that the existence of the improvement could have had no other bearing on the bargain in the minds of the parties than augmenting the price agreed to be paid for the land by the cost of the improvement.”
    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.