Traders, Inc. v. Bartholomew’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Okemo Mountain, Inc. v. Town of Ludlow (2000), Morrell v. Rice (1993)
25 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 Tong v. Feldman · 156 Ind. App. 203 - Selvia v. Reitmeyer · Russell v. Pare · Tallarico v. Brett · Davis v. Sikes
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The extent of a way of necessity is that which is required for the complete and beneficial use of the land to which such a way is impliedly attached. The rule is stated that a way of necessity is not limited to those purposes connected with the use of the dominant tenement existing at the time the easement was created, but is available for any and all purposes for which the dominant tenement may be adapted. The enjoyment of such a way is said to be limited only by the necessity for its use in connection with all lawful uses of the land to which it is appurtenant. In other words, a way of necessity is held to be coextensive with the reasonable needs, present and future, of the dominant estate; it varies with the necessity, insofar as may be consistent with the full reasonable enjoyment of the servient estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morrell v. Rice“any easement or interest in the nature of an easement ... the existence of which is clearly observable by physical evidences of its use.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“be coextensive with the reasonable needs, both present and future, of the dominant estate,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carlson v. Clark
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.