Stanley v. Epperson’s Empirical Analysis
1876
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1947
12 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.
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.
““While it is true the altered deed of itself cannot be held to be either the deed of Stanley and wife (the grantors) to Epperson (the purchaser from the grantee) or a deed from Henderson (the grantee) to him, yet the facts show that it would operate as a fraud upon appellee (Epperson) to permit Henderson, in whom the title was vested, to deny that it has been thereby conveyed to appellee. He is therefore estopped from doing so.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cooper v. Hinman · Moss v. Ingram““It is perfectly well settled that an erasure or alteration of a deed after delivery, whether recorded or not, does not reinvest the title in the grantor or abrogate or annul the title of the grantee.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nabors v. Nabors
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.