Amitin v. Izard’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 1995
12 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 Missouri State Oil Co. v. Pessina · Leeper v. Leeper · 239 Mo. App. 546 - Schnider v. M. E. H. Realty Investment Co. · Rayburn v. Fricke · Ervin v. Davis
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Even though this is a private road it is our view that it may be used freely and without restriction by the persons owning or in possession of property abutting laterally thereon and by any person who may desire to go to said premises for any lawful purpose. The conduct of defendants in placing barriers and `Keep Out' signs upon or adjoining said road was an improper interference with the legal use of the road by the plaintiffs, and the defendants were properly restrained and enjoined from so doing. It would not have been illegal for the defendants to have posted `Private Road' signs except that in each instance they contained the additional words, `Keep Out.' In view of the construction we have placed upon the instrument creating the private road it is our conclusion that the decree should not have restrained the defendants from taking any reasonable measures to discourage or even prohibit southbound traffic from Gravois Road to points beyond the southern terminus of said 400 foot private road and northbound traffic to Gravois Road originating south of the southern end of the private road. As already indicated, however, these measures must not interfere with the unrestricted use of the private road by those legally entitled to use it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Amitin v. Izard“shall be for the joint use and benefit of the present and future owners of the property abutting thereon, their heirs and assigns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Amitin v. Izard
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.