Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 324 Ark. 302 - Pledger v. Halvorson

Pledger v. Halvorson’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 2025

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 10 state decisions

1001996200020102020decided

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 Chrisco v. Sun Industries, Inc. · Haase v. Starnes · Pledger v. Troll Book Clubs, Inc. · Corning Bank v. Bank of Rector · Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Kistler

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

  1. “[W]e have stated that the intention is inferred from the nature of the chattel, the relation and situation of the party making the annexation, the structure and mode of annexation, and the purpose for which the annexation has been made. Coming Bank [v. Bank of Rector, 265 Ark. 68 , 576 S.W.2d 949, 952-953 (1979)], This Court has stated that the intention of the person making the annexation is a consideration of primary importance. Farmers [Union] Mutual Ins. Co. v. Denniston, 237 Ark. 768 , 376 S.W.2d 252 (1964). However, contrary to the assertion of the dissent, "courts apply an objective test and arrive at the annexer's intention by looking to his outward acts rather than to the inner workings of his mind.” Id. (emphasis supplied).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) whether the items are annexed to the realty, (2) whether the items are appropriate and adapted to the use or purpose of that part of the realty to which the items are connected, and (3) whether the party making the annexation intended to make it permanent.”
    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.