Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 Va. 38 - McClellan v. Ashley

McClellan v. Ashley’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
16
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably Aickin v. Ocean View Investments Co. (1997), Finkle 1962 v. Gulf & Western Manufacturing Company & 83-1465 (1984)

40 state decisions — followed in 16 states

1801958196019701980199020002010decided

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 F. B. Fountain Co. v. Stein · Jones v. Gianferante · Xanthakey v. Hayes · Dugan v. Haige · Dikeman v. Sunday Creek Coal Co.

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

  1. “He alleged that the renewal provision of the lease was ambiguous and that he should not be bound by the strictest interpretation thereof; that the lessors knew that he had intended to renew the lease and he had intended to give the written notice before October 1,1956, and the delay was due to mere inadvertent neglect on his part He alleged that he had at all times carried out the terms of the lease and that he had improved the property at great expense on the assumption that he would have possession for at least ten years, and if he should lose possession of the property he would suffer a tremendous and irreparable loss and would be left hopelessly in debt and if file lessors were given possession they would be unjustly enriched by reason of acquiring the improvements along with the good will of the business, and that it would be unconscionable to deny him a renewal for an additional four years.”
    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.