Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 ARK 769 - Leonard v. Wood

Leonard v. Wood’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 1981
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1981

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

70196119701980decided

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 Ryan v. Batchelor · Neely v. Rembert · Harrell v. Hill · Hirschman v. Forehand · Vaughan v. Butterfield

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

  1. ““It is well settled that the mention of quantity of acres after a certain description of the subject by metes and bounds, or by other known specifications, is but a matter of description, and does not amount to any covenant or afford grounds for the breach of any of the usual covenants, though the quantity fall short of the given amount. When the vendor conveys for a specified price a tract of land which is described by metes and bounds or otherwise, with the words added containing a specified number of acres, more or less, this upon the face of the contract is a contract not by the acre but in gross, and does not by implication warrant the quantity. In such event, should there be a deficiency in the quantity, the right of relief for such deficiency is founded upon fraud, misrepresentation or gross mistake.””
    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.