Miller v. Grunsky’s Empirical Analysis
1903
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 1954
12 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 Vance v. Fore · Irving v. Cunningham · Serrano v. Rawson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is provided in subdivision 2 that when permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount: but this, like every other rule embraced in the section, is subject to the qualification contained in the first clause, that they control only when there are no other sufficient circumstances to determine a doubtful construction. . . . Appellant cites a number of cases to the proposition that when a boundary line is called for it means the true boundary of the tract, and not what the parties may have supposed the lines to be. In every one of these cases the boundary line was the only call; there was no conflicting call corresponding to what the parties supposed to be the true boundary; ... no reference to any line marked by a fence or other visible monument.1 ’”
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.