Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 WY 39 - White v. Allen

White v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 2024

19 state decisions

120200320102020decided

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 United States v. O'Block · Marshall v. Blair · Gabriel v. Wood · Engel v. Gampp · Weiss v. Pedersen

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

  1. “I. Whether, as a matter of law, the word “control” in the Allen’s easement allows the owner of the Allen parcel to declare the right an “open way,” based upon a finding of fact that they “control” the entire road. II. Whether, as a matter of law, the plaintiffs use of cattle guards in lieu of gates do[es] not materially increase the burden on the servient estate. III. Whether the servient estate should be allowed to seek a trespass action against the dominant estate for misuse of the servitude, in tort, and have a jury trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The landowners contend that the easements should be limited to the area reasonably necessary to walk along the river and fish. We do not agree. Generally, the owner of an easement has the right to the area or strip having definite boundaries unhampered by structures and objects placed thereon.... This rule applies even when the structures do not “obstruct” the easement holder’s use of the easement, ... and what is reasonable or necessary is not decisive.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) if he opens and neglects to close a gate or replace bars in a fence which crosses a private road or a river, stream or ditch.”
    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.