Hansel v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Smith v. Shiebeck (1942), Feldstein v. Segall (1951)
35 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 Tong v. Feldman · Greenwalt v. McCardell · Oliver v. Hook · Burns v. Gallagher · Jay v. Michael
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘For the principle is well settled, and it is founded in reason and good sense, that no easement or quasi easement can be taken as reserved by implication, unless it be defacto annexed and in use at the time of the grant, and it be shown moreover to be actually necessary to the enjoyment of the estate or parcel retained by the grantor. And such necessity cannot be deemed to exist if a similar way or easement may be secured by reasonable trouble and expense, and especially not if the necessary way or easement can be provided through the grantor’s own property. In order to give rise to the presumption of a reservation of an existing easement or quasi easement, where the deed is silent upon the subject, the necessity must be of such strict nature as to leave no room for doubt of the intention of the parties that the adjoining properties should continue to be used and enjoyed.... If the grantor intends to reserve any right or easement over the property granted, it should be done by express terms.... It is only in cases of the strictest necessity, and where it would not he reasonable to suppose that the parties intended the contrary, that the principle of implied reservation can be invoked” [quoting Burns v. Gallagher, 62 Md. 462, 471-72 (1884)] ... “It will be observed that the reservation must be made at a time when there is unity of title, and if not expressly reserved in the deed, it must be shown that there is a necessity for its use by the property retained over the proper”
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.