Love v. Blauw’s Empirical Analysis
1900
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 1951 · most notably Johnson v. Muller (1939), State v. District Court of Eighth Jud. Dist. (1925)
1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Graves v. Atwood · Seibel v. Rapp · Abbott v. Holway · Blalock v. Tidwell · Campbell v. Harmon
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It will be noticed that the district court in this case divested the minors of a large portion of an estate which they owned in fee simple, subject only to the life estate of their mother, and gave it to the latter absolutely, in fee, and without condition. . . . W.e cannot treat the judgment in that case as voidable merely and not subject to collateral attack. We regard it as absolutely void. Having a life interest only, and claiming no greater estate in her petition, we think the court was powerless to adjudicate that she take the fee. She had no such community of interest with her children as to authorize partition.” (pp. 503, 504.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bartram v. Kemp““To confer jurisdiction upon a court for the partition of an estate, it is indispensable that cotenancy exist between the parties.” (p. 502.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bartram v. Kemp
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.