Blazer v. Wall’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Mattson v. Montana Power Co. (2009), Yorlum Properties, Ltd. v. Lincoln County (2013)
78 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 Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Cooperatives, Inc. · Giambra v. Kelsey · Ute Park Summer Homes Ass'n v. Maxwell Land Grant Co. · Leichtfuss v. Dabney · Medhus v. Dutter
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he intent to create an easement must be clearly and unmistakably communicated on the referenced plat or certificate of survey using labeling or other express language. This is the minimal requirement to establish the easement. An easement may not be inferred or implied from an unlabeled or inadequately described swath of land or other such depiction appearing on a plat or certificate of survey.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an express easement may be created by referring in an instrument of conveyance to a recorded plat or certificate of survey on which the easement is adequately described.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In an action tried without a jury, we review the district court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard. A district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record leaves this Court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. We review a district court's conclusions of law de novo, determining whether the court's interpretation and application of the law is correct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Kleppen
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.