Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 249 MO 137 - Mott v. Morris

Mott v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
January 1976
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1976 · most notably United States v. Carmack (1946), Koehler v. Rowland (1918)

4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

1501913192019301940195019601970decided

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 Lackland v. Walker · Hadley v. Forsee · Haydon v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad · Studdard v. Wells · Strother v. Barrow

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. ““This conveyance is made to said trustees, and said lot is conveyed to them for a site or lot upon which to erect a union church, to be owned and held by said trustees and their successors for the two churches above named; neither church nor its trustees are to convey away its half interest for other than church purposes. “It is further understood and agreed that the church building to be erected on said lot when completed is to be used as a house for worship by the denominations above mentioned and when not occupied by either of said denominations, said church bidlding may be used by any other orthodox or Christian church for public worship.” (Italics ours.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““What natural equity could there be in the proposition, that (absent an express provision of forfeiture in the grant itself, as here) those subscriptions, now in the form of the church building, only sprang as mist from here and there to finally descend in consolidated form as a bountiful and fruitful shower of rain upon the estate of this heir to enhance it? And all because the trustees have taken or in the future might take an erroneous view of their powers? Equity is not so lame and halting that it can afford no relief but forfeiture.””
    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.