Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 Fla. 65 - Richardson v. Holman

Richardson v. Holman’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
6
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 704 So. 2d 1386 - Green v. Life & Health of America (1998), 90 Fed. Cl. 418 - Rogers v. United States (2009)

2 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

10019481950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Caruthers v. Leonard · Battistone v. Banulski · Hamilton v. City of Jackson · Juif v. State Highway Commissioner

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In fine, the right of contract so rigidly canalized by the common law, has, by the constitution and statutes, been liberalized till at the present any citizen who is sui juris may enter into any contract that is not illegal, fraudulent, immoral or contrary to public policy. Under the common law a right of action, choses in action, future or contingent interests, possible and existing estates or interests, were not assignable, but all of these are now assignable by statute or in equity. * * *»”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]ords or phrases in isolation will not be permitted to defeat the purpose of the grantor when that may be unmistakably gleaned from the four corners of the instrument. We do not think it essential to the disposition of the question here, to precipitate a discourse in semantics on the difference between a fee simple determinable and estate on condition subsquent [sic], when a possibility of reverter is or is not alienable, or when a fee is qualified, what constitutes a naked possibility, a conditional limitation, or any other uncertain interest in lands. These old common law concepts had much to do with conveyancing in their day, but even in States like Florida, where the common law is in effect except as repealed or substituted by statute, many of them have been obsolete or have been set aside.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Tjhis conveyance is made subject to and upon the express condition that should the party of the second part cease to use the foregoing land for railroad pui’poses, then and in that event the title to said property shall revert to and vest in the [grantor] and his heirs and assigns.”
    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.