Clement v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2025
13 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 Nashville St Ry Co v. United States · Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson · Montoya v. Unknown Heirs of Vigil · Aull v. Day · Matter of Simons v. . McGuire
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * However, as said in Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, supra ( 48 Fla. 226 , 37 So. [722] 725): ‘We do not commit ourselves to all that is said in the opinions just cited, nor are we prepared to adopt or approve all of their reasoning.’ We say this because we do not wish, by this decision, to be interpreted as holding that an order for partition, or denying partition, may never, in any case, be regarded as a final or appealable order * * *. In this connection, see Bates v. Hanks, 262 Ky. 556 , 90 S.W.2d 743 ; Brown v. Crossmann, 204 N.Y. 238 , 97 N.E. 526 ; Jackson v. Myers, 120 Ind. 504 , 22 N.E. 90 , 23 N.E. 86 , and 12 O.S. 1951 § 953, with reference to ‘an order affecting a substantial right * * * (which) * * * ’. But the order here in controversy was not such an order. It affirmatively exercised the court’s power to order partition invoked by plaintiff’s petition; but it affected no substantial right of any of the parties to the action. Though, in a purely formal way, it did purport to quiet their title and 'declare their interests among themselves, it purported to make no change in said interests as they existed before the action, and about which there was no issue in the proceedings.” (Emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses should first be paid out of the entire proceeds of the sale of the property, and then the parties should receive their respective shares out of the remainder of the proceeds.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * but the provision of sec. 1512, supra, as amended, that where one or more of the parties elect to take, `* * * the court may direct the the sheriff to make a deed to the party * * *' (emphasis ours) is obviously, by its plain wording, permissive, rather than mandatory, and vests in the court discretionary powers as to giving such direction. In this connection, and as to related matters, see Hargis v. Hargis, 181 Okl. 377 , 73 P.2d 1129 ."”
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.