Smith v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Ferrero Construction Co. v. Dennis Rourke Corp. (1988), Armstrong v. Ledges Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. (2006)
1 district · 48 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 Crockett v. FIRST FEDERAL S. & L. ASS'N, ETC. · Crockett v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Charlotte · 73 Wash. 2d 849 - Bennett Veneer Factors, Inc. v. Brewer · Chandler v. . Cameron · Hawkins v. Town of Dallas
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We believe the better rule is to limit the duration of the right to a period within the rule against perpetuities and thus avoid lengthy litigation over what is or is not a reasonable time within the facts of any given case. We further agree with the authorities that a reasonable price provision in a preemptive right is one which somehow links the price to the fair market value of the land, or to the price the seller is willing to accept from third parties.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A preemptive right “requires that, before the property conveyed may be sold to another party, it must first be offered to the conveyor or his heirs, or to some specially designated person.” 6 American Law of Property § 26.64 at 506-07 (1952).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The common law prohibition of restraints on alienation] has always conflicted with another common law tenet that one who has property should be able to convey it subject to whatever condition he or she may desire to impose on the conveyance. Faced with this tension, the law has evolved in such a way that . . . restraints on alienation are premissible [sic] where the goal justifies the limit on the freedom to alienate or where the interference with alienation in a particular case is so negligible that the major policies furthered by freedom of alienation are not materially hampered.”
2 later decisions 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.