Peterson v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2022
21 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 Duhig v. Peavy-Moore Lumber Co. · Salmen Brick & Lumber Co. v. Williams · Hartman v. Potter · Taylor v. Scott · Gilbertson v. Charlson
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If both the grant and reservation cannot thereby be given effect, the reservation must fail and the risk of title loss is on the grantor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Talbot v. Ward · Sutton v. Sutton“Subsequent purchasers, or grantees, must be able to rely upon this interpretation or else, under these type of circumstances, every title would require a lawsuit in order to be alienable. Rejection of the Duhig Rule would mean sacrificing the degree of certainty and guidance that it can provide concerning marketability of mineral interests, and replacing it with an outbreak of lawsuits. This we are not willing to do.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sutton v. Sutton“Our decision in this case does not change the general rule that subjective considerations may be taken into account in reformation cases involving the original grantor and his immediate grantee.”); Mason v. Buckman, 2010 Ark.App. 256 , 2010 WL 962054 (applying Duhig rule in construction of a warranty deed transaction involving”
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.