Ozyck v. D'Atri’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably Conway v. Town of Wilton (1996), Ely v. Murphy (1988)
31 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 Smith v. Allwright · Oregon State Land Board v. Corvallis Sand and Gravel Company Corvallis Sand and Gravel Company · Cummings v. Tripp · State v. Rodriguez · United States v. Title Insurance & Trust 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' had been clearly expressed in the instrument, unlike the deed [in this case], which does not purport to create an easement but merely acknowledges the possible existence of one without indicating the person or the land to be benefitted [benefited]. Under these circumstances we have decided to defer any reconsideration of the rule adopted in Curtin until we are presented with an appropriate case where the intention of the grantor to create in his deed an interest in someone other than the grantee is reasonably clear.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Reservations in Favor of Strangers to the Title,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Experience can and often does demonstrate that a rule, once believed sound, needs modification to serve justice better.. . . The adaptability of the common law to the changing needs of passing time has been one of its most beneficient characteristics____If, however, stare decisis is to continue to serve the cause of stability and certainty in law — a condition indispensable to any well-ordered system of jurisprudence — a court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it.” [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.