Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 Okla. 139 - Sawyer v. Ware

Sawyer v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
July 1943
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 1943

18 state decisions

701912192019301940decided

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 Wallis, Landes & Co. v. Stuart · Burdette v. Corgan · Normant v. Eureka Co. · Harrison v. Wallton's Ex'or · Powell v. Gott

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

  1. ““The district court itself has the power to vacate or modify its own judgment for errors shown by an infant within 12 months after arriving at full age as prescribed in section 5935 (sec. 684), which covers those errors, which, under the old chancery practice. the infant would have had a right to show cause against, if the right had been reserved to him in the decree. Under the code practice this reservation is unnecessary, but the infant has that right nevertheless under the statute.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is true that section 6121 of Comp. Laws of 1909 provides that ‘action may be brought by any person in possession, by himself or tenant, of real property, against any person who claims an estate, or interest therein, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse estate or interest.’ But this must be construed in connection with the other statutes, and where the party claiming the adverse right has the right of appeal to this court, and where that right has not expired, it seems elementary that this action cannot be brought when its only effect is to abridge or destroy that right of appeal.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““It shall not be necessary to reserve, in a judgment or order, the right of an infant to show cause against it after his attaining full age; but in any case in which, but for this section, such reservation would have been proper, the infant, within one year after arriving at the age of 21 years, may show cause against such order or judgment.””
    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.