Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Bell Oil & Gas Co. v. Allied Chemical Corp. (1968), Bickler v. Bickler (1966)
1 federal appellate · 123 state decisions
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 Pace Corporation v. Jackson · James v. Drye · City of San Antonio v. Grandjean · Howell v. Estes · Mitchell v. Castellaw
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Courts will not disregard the corporation fiction and hold individual officers, directors or stockholders liable on the obligations of a corporation except where it appears that the individuals are using the corporate entity as a sham to perpetrate a fraud, to avoid personal liability, avoid the effect of a statute, or in a few other exceptional situations.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * The owner of land, under some circumstances, may be estopped to deny the existence of an easement by making representations which have been acted upon by a purchaser to his detriment.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If an owner used one part of his land for the benefit of another portion of his own land, the portion served had a ‘quasi-dominant tenement.’ The portion which was used was subject to a ‘quasi-servient tenement.’ The doctrine of implied easement appurtenant developed when the owner, under those circumstances, sold the portion of his land which had had the use of the other portion — as for drainage, support, way, or water. If use of the ‘servient’ tract was apparent, continuous, and necessary to the use of the ‘dominant’ land sold, the courts presumed that the necessary use of the ‘servient’ tract passed by implication to the purchaser.””
3 later decisions 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.