Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 541 SW2D 82 - Wallace v. Hankins

Wallace v. Hankins’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust (2011), Lemburg Through Lemburg v. Adams County (1987)

25 state decisions

13019761980199020002010decided

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 Priest v. Oehler · J. E. Blank, Inc. v. Lennox Land Co. · Johnson v. Great Heritage Life Insurance Co. · Thompson v. Hodge · MFA Cooperative Ass'n of Ash Grove v. Elliott

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. “`A conditional judgment or decree is one whose enforcement is dependent on the performance of future acts by a litigant and is to be annulled if default occurs. An alternative judgment or decree is for one thing or another but does not declare in a definitive manner which alternative will ultimately prevail. Conditional and alternative judgments and decrees are wholly void as they do not perform in praesenti and leave to speculation and conjecture what their final effect may be. In other words, under conditional or alternative judgments and decrees, the final resolution of the cause is consigned to the accomplishment vel non of future acts whose actual performance or nonperformance are matters dehors the record.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “if on or before 1 May 1974 plaintiffs would pay defendants $634.07, together with 7% interest ‘from November 26, 1964,’ and an unspecified amount of money defendants had expended from 1954 for real estate texes [sic] and insurance premiums on the property, then defendants ‘are hereby ordered to execute and deliver a Warranty Deed to (plaintiffs), and if (plaintiffs) comply with the aforementioned conditions then (defendants’) suit in ejectment shall be dismissed.... However, if (plaintiffs) fail to comply with the aforementioned conditions on or before May 1, 1974, then (defendants) shall be entitled to possession of the premises ... and they shall be sustained in their ejectment action against (plaintiffs).... ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “To be ripe for appeal, a judgment or decree must finally dispose of all issues raised by the pleadings, ... and must constitute a final disposition of the cause.... If an intended judgment does not dispose of all issues and all parties in the case or does not form a final disposition of the matter, it is not a final appeal-able judgment and we have no jurisdiction to entertain an attempted appeal therefrom.”
    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.