Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 491 SW2D 189 - Johnson v. Linton

Johnson v. Linton’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
6
states following
April 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2017

9 state decisions

3019731980199020002010decided

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 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Texas Employment Commission · Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel · Baker v. Henderson · Baker v. Henderson · MacDonald v. Painter

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

  1. “The restrictive covenants are to run with the land so that it is only reasonable that the machinery set up in the restrictive covenants concerning approval of plans by a committee must likewise continue to parallel the duration of the covenants, regardless of the dissolution of the corporation, the original grantor. If such were not the case the dissolution of the original corporate subdivider thereby automatically dissolves the ... committee and results in a determination that [a particular covenant] is a personal covenant in favor of the original corporate subdivider. This is entirely inconsistent with the concept that these covenants are those that do run with the land.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning”
    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.