Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 Ky. 732 - Willis v. Boyd

Willis v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2003
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2003 · most notably Inland Waterways Co. v. City of Louisville (1929), Ohio v. Kentucky (1980)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

90192819301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Pierce v. . Keator · Huntington v. . Asher

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

  1. ““Each county in this commonwealth shall have the right to dispose of the unappropriated lands lying therein, not otherwise provided for, in the manner hereinafter directed, and hold the proceeds for county purposes, unless the same has been by law otherwise appropriated. And all that portion of the bed of the Ohio river, lying north of the thread of the stream, except such portions as may be accretions to islands privately owned, is hereby declared to be vacant and unappropriated property; and same may be held, leased and used for county purposes, as herein provided. ’ ’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Assuming the act to be valid, it will be observed that section 4702 does not give the counties unlimited disposition of vacant lands. But such right is to be exercised ‘in the manner hereinafter directed,’ and while the mainland may be patented and sold in ‘the manner provided’ therefor and- made applicable thereto, the power of the disposition of the river bed was restricted to the letting or leasing for county purposes upon such terms and conditions as to it may appear beneficial to said county.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““All that portion of the bed of the Ohio river, lying north of the thread of the stream, except such portions as may be accretions to islands privately owned, is to be held and used for county purposes by the respective counties of this commonwealth bordering on said Ohio river; and the county court of each county may use, let or lease said river bed for county purposes, upon such terms and conditions as to it may appear to be beneficial to said county. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.