Turner v. . Glenn’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Callaham v. Arenson (1954), Runyon v. Paley (1992)
5 federal appellate · 83 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 Sprague v. Kimball · McPherson v. . Rollins · Holliday v. Sphar · Davis v. Robinson · Acer v. . Westcott
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ascertainment is not dependent on inference, implication or doubtful construction.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"* * * No deed in the chain of title to either of the lots owned by plaintiff sets forth any particular restrictions or reservations and no reference is made to any other instrument of record which sufficiently discloses what are the `customary restrictions in conveyances of lots fronting Madison Avenue in Block 1, Section 1, Sunset Hills,' or what are the `usual restrictions of the use and reservations placed by A. K. Moore Realty Company on property similarly situated in Sunset Hills.' Notwithstanding the general provision in the deeds of the plaintiffs they took without notice of any restrictions or reservations such as would be binding on them. "As stated, it is the duty of a purchaser of land to examine every recorded deed or instrument in his line of title and he is conclusively presumed to know the contents of such instruments and is put on notice of any fact or circumstance affecting his title which either of such instruments reasonably discloses. He is not, however, required to examine collateral conveyances of other property by any one of his predecessors in title. " (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““No covenant that the owner will not sell its land except in parcels delineated upon a map of record and with reference to which certain lots have been sold is implied by the making of such map and the sale of certain lots shown thereon, and the right of the owner to dispose of unsold portions of his lots singly or in bulk or by subdividing them into smaller parcels and selling them in such parcels is complete. Herold v. Columbia Investment & Real Estate Co., 72 N.J.Eq. 857, 67 A. 607 , 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1067, 129 Am. St.Rep. 718, 16 Ann.Cas. 580. See also Annotation, 57 A.L.R. 764 . Such covenants cannot be implied from the mere making and filing of the map showing the different subdivisions, or by selling lots in conformity therewith. Farquharson v. Scoble, 38 Cal.App. 680 , 177 P. 310, 14 L.R.A.,N.S., 1067; Gardner v. Maffitt, 335 Mo. 959 , 74 S.W.2d 604 , 95 A.L.R. 452 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. MacDonald v. Painter
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.