Clopine v. Kemper’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 1994
18 state decisions
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 Shuck v. Quackenbush · Central Savings Bank v. Smith · Tinglof v. Askerlund
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is also urged by counsel for plaintiffs that the subject matter of the divorce action was the marital status of the parties and that the division of property was merely a collateral matter. Hence, it is argued that the divorce action was not the proper subject of a notice of lis pendens. In Tinglof v. Askerlund, 96 Colo. 27 , 39 P. 2d 1039 , it was held that a notice of lis pendens which referred to a complaint seeking separate maintenance and an equitable interest in property is constructive notice as of the day the lis pendens notice is recorded. [344 P.2d at 454]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“After filing any pleading wherein affirmative relief is claimed affecting the title to real property, a party may file in the office of the recorder of the county in which the property is situated a notice of lis pendens containing ... a description of the property in that county affected thereby; such notice shall from time to time of the filing ... be constructive notice to all persons acquiring any interest in or lien upon the property described in such notice from any grantor or from any source whatsoever.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.