Van Sandt v. Royster’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2019
24 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 Wiesel v. Smira · Dee v. King · Miller v. Skaggs · Howley v. Chaffee · Ferguson v. Ferguson
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are inclined to the view that the circumstance that the claimant of the easement is the grantor instead of the grantee, is but one of many factors to be considered in determining whether an easement will arise by implication. An easement created by implication arises as an inference of the intentions of the parties to a conveyance of land. The inference is drawn from the circumstances under which the conveyance was made rather than from the language of the conveyance. The easement may arise in favor of the conveyor or the conveyee. . . .” (pp. 500, 501.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horner v. Heersche““ ‘Parties to a conveyance may, therefore, be assumed to intend the continuance of uses known to them which are in a considerable degree necessary to the continued usefulness of the land. Also they will be assumed to know and to contemplate the continuance of reasonably necessary uses which have so altered the premises as to make them apparent upon reasonably prudent investigation.’ ” Van Sandt, 148 Kan. at 501 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘The degree of necessity required to imply an easement in favor of the conveyor is greater than that required in the case of the conveyee .... Yet, even in the case of the conveyor, the implication from necessity will be aided by a previous use made apparent by the physical adaptation of the premises to it.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Van Sandt, 148 Kan. at 501 .”
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.