Loud v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2015
4 federal appellate · 4 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 Bissell v. . the New York Central R.R. Company · Snoddy v. Bolen · Pettibone v. Hamilton · Hamilton v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · Johnson & Co. v. Arnold
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold the correct rule to be that a conveyance of land bounded on a highway, street,, or alley carries with it the fee to the center thereof, subject to the easement of public way, provided the grantor at the time of conveyance owned to the center and there are no words in the deed showing a contrary intent, whether the dedication of the highway, street, or alley has been accepted or not, and whether it has been opened or not.” Loud v. Brooks, 241 Mich. 452 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nordberg v. Todd
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.