Prichard v. McCranie’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 1961 · most notably Doll v. Doll (1944), Mitcham v. Mitcham (1937)
26 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 Gilmer v. O'Neal · Duffourc v. Duffourc · Medicis v. Medicis · 40 La. Ann. 186 - Gaudet v. Gauthreaux · Mohawk Oil Co. v. Layne
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The present suit for the partition of the same property, into the possession of which these heirs were sent by judgment of the Sixth district court of date October 1, 1921, was filed in said court June 5, 1922. It is clear, therefore, that the succession of Mrs. C. A. McCranie ceased when the heirs were recognized and sent into possession, that the property thenceforth became their common property as owners, and that the present suit is not one involving the division of succession property, but is an ordinary partition suit between co-owners. [Citing the jurisprudence]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Doll v. Doll
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.