Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 Wyo. 402 - Slane v. Curtis

Slane v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
5
states following
April 1996
most recently cited

1 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently April 1996 · most notably Phelps v. Woodward Con. Co., N. Util. (1949), Joiner v. Pound (1948)

1 district · 22 state decisions

801930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Town Council v. Ladd · Langdon v. Mayor, Aldermen Commonalty, N.Y. · Big Five Mining Co. v. Left Hand Ditch Co. · Anderson v. Miller · State v. Elliot

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

  1. ““It is generally held that a fixture substituted by a tenant for another fixture which was upon the premises at the time of the making of the lease cannot, ordinarily, be removed by him if the original fixture has been injured or permanently removed, since the effect of the removal of the substituted fixture would be to leave the premises in worse condition than when he took it. 26 C. J. 700. The tenant in the case at bar agreed in his lease, that he received the premises in good condition and that he would redeliver it in the same way, ordinary wear and tear excepted. He stripped the building and boarded up the openings where the doors and windows had been. The removal thereof left the property, accordingly, in a maimed condition and when that is true the right of removal is denied. 26 C. J. 700.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * Since the primary object is to reimburse the plaintiff for his loss, he has no right to be placed in a better position than he would have been, if the property in question had not been removed and he would not, accordingly, be entitled to have property replaced in better condition and of greater value than the property removed. Hence while it was proper to show both the original cost of the property as well as the cost of replacement, the extent of the depreciation of the property, if any, should also appear and be taken into consideration. * * * ””
    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.