Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 NY 344 - Ford v. . Cobb

Ford v. . Cobb’s Empirical Analysis

1859

Citation profile

85
cited by 85 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 77 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 85 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2003 · most notably Clayton v. Lienhard (1933), San Diego Trust & Savings Bank v. County of San Diego (1940)

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 77 state decisions — followed in 28 states

1601859186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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

  1. ““ But it is otherwise with things which, being originally personal in their nature, are attached to the realty in such a manner that they may be detached without being destroyed or materially injured, and without the destruction of, or material injury to the things real with which they are connected ; though their connection with the land or other real estate is such that in the absence of an agreement or of any special relation between the parties in interest, they would be a part of the real estate.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ Thus, a house or other building, which from its size or the materials from which it was constructed, or the manner in which it was fixed to the land, could not be removed without practically destroying it, would not, I conceive, become a mere chattel, by means of any agreement which could be made concerning it. So of the separate materials of a building, and things fixed into the wall, so as to be essential to its support; it is impossible that they should hy any arrangement between the owners become chattels.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ It will readily be conceded that the ordinary distinction between real estate and chattels exists in the nature of the subject, and cannot in general be changed by the convention of the parties. Thus, it would not be competent for parties to create a personal chattel interest in a part of the separate bricks, beams, or other materials of which the walls of a house were composed.””
    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.