Rhodig v. Keck’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2018
12 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 Granberry v. Jones · 7 Cal. App. 39 - Scarborough v. Woodill · Cathcart v. Malone · 112 Cal. App. 2d 1 - Bonde v. Bishop · Higdon v. Henderson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Based on the factual situation presented, plaintiffs' contention that they and Keck were tenants in common of the trees is without merit, for this is not a true boundary line case. The line of authorities relied on by the Rhodigs, therefore, is not in point.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Apparently a test in determining whether trees are boundary line subjects entitled to protection is whether they were planted jointly, or jointly cared for, or were treated as a partition between adjoining properties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Love v. Bishop“Obviously here one of the trees being wholly on Keck's land, it is not involved in this dispute under these facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Love v. Bishop
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.