Curtis v. Sutter’s Empirical Analysis
1860
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1936 · most notably Holland v. Challen (1884), Sharon v. Tucker (1892)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 55 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Merced Mining Co. v. Fremont · Winans v. Christy
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An action may be brought by any person in possession by himself or his tenant of real property against any person who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate, or interest.” Comp. St. p. 160, § 366.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under tlie statute of this state, it is unnecessary for tlie plaintiff to, delay seeking tlie equitable interposition of the court until be lias been disturbed in Iris possession, by the institution of a suit against him, and until judgment in such suit has passed in his favor. It is sufficient if, whilst in the possession of the property, a party out of possession claims an estate or interest adverse to him. He can immediately, upon knowledge of the assertion of such claim, require the nature and character of the adverse estate or interest to be produced, exposed, and judicially determined, and tlie question of title be thus forever quieted. It does not follow from the fact that the suit is brought in equity that the determination of questions purely of a legal character in relation to the title will necessarily be withdrawn from the ordinary cognizance of a court of law.””
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.