Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 U.S. 577 - Clark v. Graham

Clark v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis

19 U.S. 577 · 1821

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
October 1950
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1950 · most notably Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co. (1910), Platt v. Union Pacific Railroad (1878)

17 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 15 states

17018211830184018501860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

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

  1. ““The deed of- Massie was executed in the presence of one witness only ; whereas, the law of Ohio requires all deeds of land to be executed in the presence of two witnesses. It is perfectly clear that no title to the lands can be acquired or passed unless according to the laws of the state in which they are situated. The act of Ohio, regulating the conveyance of lands, passed on the- 14th of February, 1805, provides: ‘That all deeds for the conveyance of lands, tenements and hereditaments, situated, lying and being within this state, shall be signed and sealed by the grantor in the presence of two witnesses, who shall subscribe the said deed or convej'ance, attesting the acknowledgment of the signing and sealing thereof; and if executed within this state, shall be acknowledged by the party or parties, or proven by the subscribing witnesses, before a judge of: the court of common ideas, or a justice of the peace in any county in this state.’ Although there are no negative words in this clause declaring all deeds for the conveyance of lands executed in any other manner to be void, yet this must be necessarily inferred from the clause in the absence of all words indicating a different legislative intent:, and, in point of fact, such is understood to be the uniform construction of the act in the courts of Ohio. The deed, then, in this case not being executed according to the laws of the state, the evidence was properly rejected by the Circuit Court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““1. A power to convey lands must possess the same requisites, and observé the same solemnities, as are necessary in a deed directly conveying the land. “2. A title to land can only be acquired and lost according’ to the laws of the state in which they are situate.””
    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.