Hurd v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2017
16 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 Hill v. Hill · Middleton v. Johnston · Brown v. Tazewell County Water & Sewerage Authority · Sprott v. Sprott · Ocean Island Inn, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Watkins’ argument makes very little sense. First, the provision does not say that it applies only to reservation made prior to the enactment of the statutory provision. Second, similar language remains in the Code today almost twenty-five years after the Holloway Forest Subdivision plat was recorded, which suggests that the reservation language is meant to have continued vitality. See Code § 15.1-478 (Acts 1978 c. 590). The correct reading of the provision is that reservations of property made prior to submitting the plat and invoking the statute are not prohibited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ballagh v. Gray
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.