State v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2001
4 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 City of San Antonio v. Grandjean · Chupco v. Chapman · Shraiberg v. Hanson · State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Meeker · Klein v. McNamara
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“of the probate court. It was not, however, recorded in any of the real property records (nor was it recorded in the lis pendens record as required by Act No. 181, Acts of Alabama, Second Special Session, 1971) at the time of the sale of the land to the Sparkses, the purchasers for value. We held in Fort Payne that the easement was outside the purchasers' chain of title and that they did not have constructive notice of it. In deciding Fort Payne, this Court looked to Abbott and § 35-4-90. We held that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]f our construction of § 35-4-90 is considered by the legislature to be contrary to its intent, the legislature is free to amend § 35-4-90 to specifically provide that orders of condemnation [prior to 1971] need not be recorded.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“even though the State of Alabama and the Alabama Power Company, as amicus curiae, both strongly insist that orders of condemnation have never been considered by them to be transfers of title which have to be recorded.”
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.