Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 301 MASS 64 - Markey v. Smith

Markey v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
4
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably Kobayashi v. Orion Ventures, Inc. (1997), Minot v. Minot (1946)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions

9019381940195019601970198019902000decided

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 First Universalist Society of North Adams v. Boland · Eustace v. Dickey · Pearson v. Mulloney · Judkins v. Charette · Morin v. Clark

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[S)ome words of themselves do make a condition, and some others ... do not of themselves make a condition without a conclusion and clause of re-entrie: and manie times (sic) makes a condition and sometimes a limitation . . .” Co. Lit. 203, b. “The provision for reentry is . . . the distinctive characteristic of an estate upon condition; and when it is found that by any form of expression the grantor has reserved the right, upon the happening of any event, to reenter, and thereby revest in himself his former estate, it may be construed as such . . . The words ‘provided,’ ‘so that,’ and ‘upon condition that,’ are the usual words to make a condition; but to say, that if a certain event happen the grantor may reenter, is equally effectual. And the reason of this rule of construction is, that the stipulation for a right of reentry would be senseless if the deed were construed to create a limitation; because the estate vesting upon the mere happening of the event, the right to enter would of course follow with all other rights of ownership.” Attorney General v. Merrimack Manuf. Co., 14 Gray 586 , 612.”
    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.