Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 WASHAPP 454 - Veach v. Culp

Veach v. Culp’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
September 1979
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Joy v. City of St Louis · Territory of New Mexico v. United States · Abercrombie v. Simmons · Morsbach v. Thurston County · 37 Wash. 2d 533 - Swan v. O'LEARY

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

  1. “[T]he said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of Two Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars, . . . do by these presents remise, release and forever quit claim unto said party of the second part, and to its assigns, all that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land situate in Whatcom County . . . to-wit: "A right-of-way one hundred feet wide, being fifty feet on each side of the center line of the B.B. & Eastern R.R. as now located through that portion of lot 6, Section 22, Township 37 North Range 4 East, lying east of Fir St. Blue Canyon and also Lot Seven (7) same Section excepting all rights for road purposes that may have heretofore been conveyed to Whatcom County and particularly reserving all littoral and riparian rights to the said Fred and Mattie A. Zobrist [the grantors]. "Together with the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appurtaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof. "To have and to hold, all and singular, said premises, together with the appurtenances unto the said party of the second part, and to its assigns forever.”
    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.