Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 Okla. 220 - McKellop v. Dewitz

McKellop v. Dewitz’s Empirical Analysis

1914

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
5
states following
February 1975
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1975

12 state decisions

401914192019301940195019601970decided

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 Hunt v. Rousmanier's Administrators · Charles Taylor v. Thomas Burns a S R · Hicks v. Post · Cloe v. Rogers · Kimmell v. Powers

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

  1. ““A careful consideration of the contract c’early shows that no interest in the real estate was conveyed by it to the agent, Dewitz. The terms, of the contract do not justify the conclusion that there was any attempt or intention to convey to the agent any part of the title or any distinct interest or estate in the real estate itself. The interest created in or conveyed to the agent was a definite part of the proceeds of sales, an interest in the result — the thing produced by the exercise of the power — and therefore the contract cannot be properly said to be ‘a power coupled with an interest.’ It is true that, if the agreement had been fully completed, the .agent might have claimed under it an interest in that part of the property remaining after a sufficient amount had been sold.to satisfy the Beard mortgage; yet this particular interest was contingent, and did not vest upon the execution and' delivery of the contract. It was not such an interest as the agent could have conveyed in his own name in the event of the death of the principals.””
    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.