Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 Ga. 668 - Clay v. Smith

Clay v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
February 1994
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1994

4 state decisions

201960197019801990decided

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 Grant v. Haymes · Clay v. Smith · Hollywood Cemetery Corp. v. Hudson · Carter v. Carter · Field v. Hargis

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

  1. “A description of property excepted or reserved in a deed is sufficiently certain when the description is adequate to show what property is excepted or reserved from the operation of the deed. [Cits.] Where the description of the property excepted or reserved is so deficient that it can not be located, the exception or reservation falls.”
    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.