Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 59 F.1d 96 - Board of Com'rs v. Young

Board of Com'rs v. Young’s Empirical Analysis

59 F. 96 · 1893

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
February 1986
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1986

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

401893190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Dennick v. Railroad Co. · Stanley v. Colt · Barclay v. Richard W. Howell's Lessee · Sohier v. Trinity Church · Corporation of Brick Presbyterian Church v. Mayor of New York

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

  1. ““ That the grantor ever contemplated a reverter is not to be presumed, in the light of the presence of absolute words of conveyance and quitclaim, and the absence of any provision for a reverter or reentry. ' If it had been intended that the conveyance should terminate on an abandonment of the public use, it is strange that some language was not used indicative of such purpose. Too much weight was attached to the circumstance that the. city wished the title, in order to maintain a suit against..' a trespasser. Such suit could have been maintained with- ' out the title. Too little weight has been given to the fact that the deed was upon a valuable consideration; to the fact that it was a quitclaim of all right, title, and interest; to the fact of a previous common-law dedication; and to the failure, under such circumstances, tó make the title subject to an express right of reentry. The minuteness of- direction concerning the administration of property conveyed to a public use is insufficient to take the case out of the rule, supported by an overwhelming weight of authority, that "the mere expression of a purpose or particular use to which property is to be appropriated will not make the estate a conditional one.” '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “conditions subsequent, especially when relied on to work a forfeiture, must be created by express terms or clear implication, and are construed strictly,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.