Craig v. O'BRYAN’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. Vocque (1991), Carson v. County of Drew (2003)
2 federal appellate · 60 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 Fullenwider v. Kitchens · Boullioun v. Constantine · Lecroy v. Sigman · Doan v. Allgood · Nelms v. Steelhammer
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As a general rule, when the character of an easement is once fixed, no material alterations can be made in physical conditions which are essential to the proper enjoyment of the easement except by agreement."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““To establish their easement by prescription, it is necessary that appellees establish their use of the roadway for more than seven consecutive years, under a claim of right, adverse, and hostile to appellants. Quoting from 14 Words and Phrases, Easement by Prescription, p. 98: ‘ “Easement by prescription” may be created only by adverse use of privilege with knowledge of person against whom easement is claimed, or by use so open, notorious, and uninterrupted that knowledge will be presumed, and exercised under claim of right adverse to owner and acquiesced in by him.’ ” (Emphasis supplied)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * It is a general rule that the owner of an easement of way may prepare, maintain, improve or repair the way in a manner and to an extent reasonably calculated to promote the purposes for which it was created or acquired, causing neither an undue burden upon the servient estate nor am unwarranted interference with the rights of common owners or the independent rights of others.””
2 later decisions 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.