Marta v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Wareing v. Schreckendgust (1996), Warnack v. Coneen Family Trust (1994)
25 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 Crncevich v. Georgetown Recreation Corporation · First Security Bank of Bozeman v. Tholkes · Scott v. Weinheimer · Ferguson v. Standley · Fleming v. Lockwood
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“F. The right of the Plaintiffs [Wamack], heirs, successors, assigns and agents to use the primary road easement should be on foot, horseback, and all ordinary modern means of transportation for purpose of access to their lands, construction of a residence and outbuildings as necessary, all for agricultural purposes. Additionally, Plaintiffs have a right to access their property for hunting, fishing, camping and recreation. It is the conclusion of the Court that the easement is governed by the character and extent of its use during the period requisite to acquire it and that the easement can not exceed the use which Plaintiffs and their predecessors made of it during the prescriptive period. This grants Plaintiffs an absolute right to access their property over the primary easement for all agricultural purposes, as well as hunting and fishing recreational purposes. It does not grant an easement for purposes of logging, mineral extraction or exploration, or subdividing of the real property. Such uses of the prescriptive easement would increase the burden on the servient landowners. None of the parties are hereby prohibited from placing gates or cattle guards on their respective properties but if locks are placed on gates, keys or combinations, as necessary, shall be provided to Plaintiffs and their agents. G. All of the Defendants [Coneen], their heirs, successors, assigns and agents, shall be permanently enjoined and restrained from obstructing or interfering with Plaintiffs’ ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“attorney fees andcosts are recoverable under section 27- 19- 306. MCA, as elements of the damages sustained by reason of the injunction . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gregory v. Spannagel
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.