Thrasher v. Thrasher’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1993
16 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 Hudson v. Clark · Payne v. Payne · Enright v. Bannister · Crump v. Gilliam · Mumpower v. Castle
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellants assigned error to the court’s denial of their motion that the land be allotted to them and they be allowed to pay to the others for the value of their interests, pursuant to Code, § 8-692. The motion was made two days before the final decree. On the date of the decree Robert Guy Thrasher and the successors in title of Daniel Leroy Thrasher filed a similar motion asking that the tract be allotted to them. The court found, as stated, that it should be allotted to neither group. There was no error in that ruling. The language of the allotment provision is permissive and its exercise rests in the sound discretion of the court. In this case it is not shown that the court should have honored the request of one group over that of the other, or that the request of either should have been granted.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shotwell v. Shotwell
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.