Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 S.C. 99 - Davis v. Strauss

Davis v. Strauss’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2004

5 state decisions

2019341940195019601970198019902000decided

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.

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

  1. ““The question to be determined is whether the word ‘issue’ was used by Rebecca C. Davis, the grantor, in its technical sense as a word of limitation. If so, then James J. Davis took, under the rule in Shelley s case, a fee conditional estate which, upon the birth of issue ripened into a fee simple absolute for the purposes of alienation, forfeiture, or to charge. This is the contention of the respondents, and we think their position is sustained by the case of Antley v. Antley, 132 S. C. 306, 128 S. E. 31, 32 .””
    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.