Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 63 Okla. 73 - Ross v. Sanderson

Ross v. Sanderson’s Empirical Analysis

1917

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
June 1984
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1984

8 state decisions

2019171920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Nicoll v. . the New-York and Erie Railroad Co. · Ruch v. Rock Island · Firth v. Marovich · Railroad Companies v. Gaines · Quatman v. McCray

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

  1. ““All buildings erected on above-described lots to have a foundation not less than 20x-30 feet in size; studding on said building not to be less than 16 feet high, and no house erected on said lots to cost less than two thousand dollars, and that no building shall be erected on said lots to be nearer than 25 feet from front lot line, without the consent of grantor in writing. Any violations of the foregoing conditions ana restrictions by the grantee, his heirs or assigns, shall work a forfeiture to all title in and to said lots, and that the. above conditions and restrictions shall extend to and are hereby made obligatory upon the party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, forever, together with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Of course, it is well settled that a condition may be waived or a forfeiture saved, not only by express agreement, but also by acts showing an intention to continue the estate in the grantee, or to \ oluntarily fore-go the benefits of the condition, especially where the grantor’s declarations, conduct, or failure to act, when he ought to act, have' been at variance or inconsistent with his right to- enforce a forfeiture, or have so continued for a long period of time.””
    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.