McElroy v. Danciger’s Empirical Analysis
1922
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1982
11 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 Houston Oil Co. of Texas v. Kimball · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hudson · Hermann v. Likens · Eakin v. Scott · Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Settegast
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.
““The office of a description in a deed or contract is not to identify it but furnish means of identification. A, deed is not void for uncertainty, unless on its face the description cannot, by extrinsic evidence, be made to apply to any definite land. A very short description in the instrument may be sufficient to furnish the means of identification.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Our decisions have frequently held where there is an express or implied reference from one document to another this incorporates the latter into the former, so as to allow the two to be considered together for the purpose of determining whether the requirements of the statute have been complied with.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oliver v. Corzelius
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.