Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 Ark. 296 - Tuggle v. Tribble

Tuggle v. Tribble’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 1960
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1960

7 state decisions

2019281930194019501960decided

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 Miller v. Tatum · Davis v. Gaines · Booe v. Road Improvement District No. 4 · Burns v. Harrington · Hill v. McClintock

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

  1. “It is next contended that the county court had no right to vacate a surburban highway which had been dedicated to the public, and that D. M. Tuggle and other abutting landowners had a vested interest in the matter, because they had bought property relying upon the fact that the road in front of their property would always be a public road. If this were true, there could never be any change in an existing highway, because doubtless all abutting property owners would claim that they bought their property relying upon the fact that it was abutting upon a public easement, and that the road could never be discontinued or changed”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In this connection, it may be said that there can be no change of an existing highway that does not cause some private inconvenience; and, in that sense, injury to the abutting property owners, who have adapted themselves to the existing order of things and have purchased property on a highway which they believed would never be changed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Of course, the county court should not change or alter the public highway, unless the public convenience or necessity requires such change.”
    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.