Sherman v. Sherman’s Empirical Analysis
1909
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2009
2 federal appellate · 10 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 Brant v. Virginia Coal and Iron Company et al. · Boggs v. Merced Mining Co. · Henshaw v. Bissell · Davis v. Davis · Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co. v. Geisel
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It seems to be quite evident that the legislative mind intended that a fee title should pass to the railway company, and that there is no way of escaping this conclusion. It is plainly apparent from the reading of the statute that the title to be acquired under these provisions is coextensive and correlative with the power of holding and disposition of the land so acquired. The plain intent of the legislative assembly was that a complete title should be vested in the company. “The very wording and form of this grant in question are such as to make it clear that plaintiffs intended to convey and the company to acquire the full title contemplated by this statute — a fee-simple title.””
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.