Threlkeld v. Inglett’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably Jilek v. Chicago, Wilmington & Franklin Coal Co. (1943), Owens v. Green (1948)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 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 Bruner v. Hicks · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Smith · Hamilton v. Harvey · McCauley v. Coe · Bostwick v. Hess
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The conveyance was to be of the coal, oil, and gas under the land, with the right to mine and remove the same, and, when anything is granted, all the means to attain it and all the fruits and effects of it are granted also, and pass, together with the grant of the thing itself, without any words to that effect. * * * Where a grant is made for a valuable consideration it is presumed that the grantor intended to convey and the grantee expected to receive the full benefit of it, and therefore the grantor not only conveyed the thing specifically described, but all other things, so far as it was within his power to pass them, which were necessary to the enjoyment of the thing granted. The deed, when made, would not only pass the coal, oil, and gas, with the right to mine and remove the same, but also the right to enter upon and use so much of the surface of the land as might be necessary to the enjoyment of the property and rights conveyed, and the agreement was merely that the. land taken for such use should be paid for, when located, at the rate of $150 an acre. It was not within the rule against perpetuities.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.