Thomas Ellicott v. William Pearl’s Empirical Analysis
35 U.S. 412 · 1836
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 6 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably California v. Green (1970), Tome v. United States (1995)
43 federal appellate · 6 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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 Mima Queen and Childs for Freedom v. Hepburn · Davis v. Wood · Caufman v. Presbyterian Congregation of Cedar Spring
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A lease of a piece of land by prescribed boundaries witbin a larger tract will not, even though entered upon and- held, effect a possession of any other part of the tract than such small piece, and will not extend possession by construction to the boundaries of the larger tract, of which such smaller piece is a part. * * * But if a landlord settles his tenant without bounds upon a tract of land, he is in possession to the limits of the title papers under which he claims.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here the testimony is assailed as a fabrication of a recent date . . . in order to repel such imputation, proof of the antecedent declaration of the party may be admitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In truth, the instruction asked seems to have proceeded upon a ground perfectly untenable in itself, and that is that as to third persons, who are in under title or color of title, their possession is to be bounded and limited by the nature and extent and origin of the distinct titles of their adversary, and not by that under which they themselves have entered and taken possession.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.