Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 326 Mo. 304 - Sutton v. Anderson

Sutton v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
October 1988
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1988

14 state decisions

50193019401950196019701980decided

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 Shepard v. Barron · Lohmeyer v. St. Louis Cordage Co. · In Re Guardianship of Angela McMenamy · Hecker v. Bleish · State Ex Rel. Conant v. Trimble

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

  1. ““The argument of respondent’s counsel that appellant could have surrendered the land in March, 1920, and avoided all liability for future rents and profits was obviously correct. Counsel qualified that remark by saying that appellant would not lose his improvements, for which he had already brought suit. Of course, appellant could have yielded possession of the land in response to respondent’s suit for possession, to which he was admittedly entitled at that time, and would have incurred no liability for rents and profits accruing after such surrender. Such surrender could not affect his pending suit to recover the reasonable value of improvements, for which he would have been entitled to recover, if he had not made such surrender.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Even if the above language (in the Anderson case) were given the meaning now ascribed to it by Anderson’s counsel, it would not be controlling in this case (the Sutton case), because the reasoning of that opinion was never endorsed by a majority of the court.””
    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.