Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 N.M. 103 - Pratt v. Parker

Pratt v. Parker’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Cave v. Cave (1970), Greene v. Esquibel (1954)

23 state decisions

1101953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Reusens v. Lawson · Armstrong v. Morrill · N. H. Ranch Co. v. Gann · Shaw v. Board of Education · Dye v. Crary

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. “"Where, during the running of the statute of limitations in favor of the adverse occupant of land, the land is forfeited to the state for taxes, the general rule is that continuity of possession is interrupted for the reason that the statute of limitations does not run against the state in the absence of some special provision to that effect." See also 2 C.J.S., Adverse Possession, § 152.”
    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.