Smith v. Bangham’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2006 · most notably Helvering v. San Joaquin Fruit & Investment Co. (1936), Rauer's Collection Co. v. Higgins (1948)
15 federal appellate · 80 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Richardson v. Hardwick · Bell v. Bank of California · Lee v. Murphy · House v. Jackson · Guyer v. Warren
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fundamental basis upon which all these deci-. sions must rest is the proposition that (except where the contrary is expressly declared by statute), a declaration of homestead is subject to all rights in the property known by the person filing the declaration to exist. And this principle, applied to the facts of the present case, requires the holding that the declaration of homestead made by Mrs. Bangham with knowledge of the contract theretofore entered into with the plaintiff was subject to his right to demand a conveyance of the land in accordance with his contract. . . . “Here, however, we have no question of an attempt to subject the land to execution or forced sale from which it is specifically exempted. The question is merely whether antecedent rights in the property shall be cut off by a declaration of homestead, or, otherwise stated, whether such declaration shall enlarge the title owned at the time of its filing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Strahan v. Haynes“cut off intervening rights acquired with knowledge of the existence of the option.”
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.