Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 F.2d 492 - Roemhild v. Jones

Roemhild v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

239 F.2d 492 · 1957

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
10
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Johns-Manville Corp. v. United States (1987), United States v. Adkins-Phelps, Inc. (1968)

9 federal appellate · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states

901957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Kershner v. Hurlburt · Dodd v. Rotterman · Campbell v. Campbell · Lantis v. Cook

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

  1. ““ * * * In many jurisdictions restraints on alienation are not invalid as against public policy if they are reasonable, although they will not be upheld unless they serve a legal and useful purpose, or unless positive law or public policy demands it. “Where restraints are not ipso facto void, whether a substantial restraint on alienation is valid depends on the particular circumstances; and the public policy against restraints on alienation may be relaxed where the circumstances convince the court that it is a reasonable means of accomplishing a purpose recognized as proper * * *.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The rule against perpetuities is not a rule of construction but a rule of property, yet if there are two possible constructions of an instrument, one which would render it valid and one which would render it invalid, preference will be accorded to the construetion which will uphold it. Roemhild v. Jones, 239 F.2d 492, 496 (8th Cir., 1957).”
    1 later decision 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.