Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 MINN 493 - Schultz v. Bower

Schultz v. Bower’s Empirical Analysis

1894

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
9
states following
March 2003
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2003

17 state decisions

40189419001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Gilmore v. Driscoll · Brakken v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. · Chute v. State · Nichols v. City of Duluth

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

  1. ““* * * The right of lateral support from the adjacent soil is an absolute right of property; and, as a consequence of this principle, it follows that for any injury to his soil, resulting from the removal of the natural support to which it is entitled, by means of excavation on an adjoining tract, the owner has a legal remedy against the party by whom the mischief has been done. This does not depend upon negligence, but upon the violation of the right of property. [Cases cited.] This unqualified or absolute right of lateral support applies only to the land itself, and not to the buildings or other artificial structures. Where one, by digging in his own land, causes the adjoining land of another to fall, the actionable wrong is not the excavation, but the act of allowing the other’s land to fall. Sedg. Dam. § 925. “Hence the measure of damages is the diminution of the value of the land by reason of the falling of the soil; and it is immaterial whether this falling be called ‘caving’ or ‘washing,’ provided it is the natural and proximate result of removing the lateral support.””
    2 later decisions 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.