Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 N.C. 255 - Holland v. . Smith

Holland v. . Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
1
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Cannon v. . Cannon (1945), Coppedge v. Coppedge (1951)

48 state decisions

29019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “If a will is sufficiently distinct and plain in its meaning as to enable the court to say that a particular person is to take, and that a particular thing passes, that is sufficient; and it must be construed upon its face without resorting to extraneous methods of explanation to give it point.”
    2 later decisions 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.