Batson v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Cutts v. Casey (1971), Cutts v. Casey (1967)
38 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 Powell v. Mills · WACHOVIA BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. Miller · Jenkins v. Trantham · Newkirk v. Porter · Cherry v. Slade's Administrator
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hat are the boundaries is a matter of law to be determined by the court from the description set out in the conveyance. Where those boundaries may be located on the ground is a factual question to be resolved by the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““If a particular corner is unknown and cannot be determined by adhering to the directions in the sequence specified, it is permissible to go to a subsequent known or established corner and by reversing the direction fix the location of the unknown corner. This backtracking is permissible only because it permits the location of an otherwise unknown corner.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Plaintiffs introduced in evidence their grant which called for the northern line of the ‘William B. Sidbury’ grant as its southern boundary, and introduced evidence tending to locate the northern line of the ‘William B. Sidbury grant.’ Held: Plaintiffs had introduced evidence sufficient to permit the jury to find the northern line of that grant as their southern boundary, notwithstanding that this boundary would almost double the north-south line as called for in plaintiffs’ grant and notwithstanding the absence of testimony that the William B. Sidbury line located by the witnesses was the same line called for in their grant, there being no evidence that the line was not in fact the line referred to in their grant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cutts v. Casey
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.