Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 34 CAL 365 - Arrington v. Liscom

Arrington v. Liscom’s Empirical Analysis

1868

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
December 1947
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1947 · most notably Tannhauser v. Adams (1947), Stolfa v. Gaines (1929)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 49 state decisions — followed in 10 states

160186818701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 Pixley v. Huggins · Curtis v. Sutter · Hager v. Shindler · Grattan v. Wiggins · Inhabitants of School-District No. Four v. Benson

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

  1. ““If the title of Liscom is extinguished, either by the foreclosure already had, or by a twelve years’ adverse possession, then his deed, representing an extinct title, gives him no present subsisting right, either in law or equity, and it can only be a shadow, casting its baleful influence upon the title of plaintiff, diminishing the value of his estate, and the plaintiff is entitled to have it removed. Conceding plaintiff’s legal propositions arising upon the facts averred to be sound, the prayer for relief is appropriate to the case alleged. And he has asked no relief inconsistent with this theory of his case. While the prayer cannot aid in making out a case otherwise defectively stated in the complaint, it may well serve to show what kind of a case the plaintiff supposes he has made, and the kind of relief to which he conceives himself entitled. It may indicate the object which the plaintiff seeks to accomplish.””
    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.