Kunkle v. Clinkingbeard’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2004
5 state decisions
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 Hindman v. Oregon Short Line Railroad · State v. Thum
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘One of the requisites necessary to the validity of a parol agreement establishing a boundary line between adjoining owners is that the location of the true line sought to be thus established be doubtful, uncertain, or in dispute. If the line is not disputed, indefinite, or uncertain, a parol agreement changing its location is within the statute of frauds and is void.’ 8 Am.Jur., p. 799, sec. 74.” Kunkle v. Clinkingbeard, 66 Idaho 493 , 162 P.2d 892, 893 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Yeakel v. Meyer
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.