Roller v. Shaver’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 2018
11 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 Conrad v. Conrad's · Davis v. Kendall · Hurt v. Hurt · Nageli v. McMorris · Moore v. Downham
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have said in a number of cases that the word ‘use’ does not import any power of disposition of the corpus—the jus disponendi of the thing used—but its meaning denotes the contrary. This interpretation is expressed in these words: ‘Indeed only the right to use and enjoy the benefit of the corpus is implied by the word “use”. In re Moor’s Estate, 163 Mich. 353 , 128 N. W. [198], 199.’ Hurt v. Hurt, 121 Va. 413, 422 , 93 S. E. 672, 674 ; Taylor v. Taylor, 176 Va. 413, 11 S. E. (2d) 587 ; Bristow v. Bristow, 138 Va. 67, 69 , 120 S.E. 859 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“as the polar star to guide and direct us.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Feeney, S. v. Feeney
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.