Johns v. Bowden’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently January 2011 · most notably Pasco v. Harley (1917), Osceola Fertilizer Company v. Sauls (1929)
2 federal appellate · 64 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 Crocker v. Smith · Thomas v. Williamson · Saxon v. Rawls
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To constitute a ‘head of a family’ there must be at least two persons who live together in the relation of one family, and one of them must be ‘the head’ of that ‘family.’ .When the natural relation of husband and wife or parent and child, or that of being in loco parentis,' does not exist, the relation should be one in which an established and continuing personal authority, responsibility and obligation actually rests upon one as ‘the head of a family’ for the welfare of the others who in law should or in fact do recognize and observe a family relation to the one as ‘the head of a family.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 1: ■ — A homestead to the extent of one hundred and sixty acres of land, or the half of one acre within the limits of any incorporated city or town, owned by the head of a family residing in this State, together with one thousand dollars worth of personal property, and the improvements on the real estate, shall be exempt from forced sale under process of any court, and the real estate shall not be alienable without the joint consent of husband and wife, when that relation exists. But no property shall be exempt from sale for taxes or assessments, or for the payment of obligations contracted for the purchase of said property, or for the erection or repair of improvements on the real estate exempted, or for house, field or other labor performed on the same. The exemption herein provided for in a city or town shall not extend to more improvements or buildings than the residence and business house of the owner; and no judgment or decree or execution shall be a lien upon exempted property except as provided in this Article. “§ 2. Exemption to inure to widow and heirs. “Section 2: —the exemptions provided for in section one shall inure to the widow and heirs of the party entitled to such exemption, and shall apply to all debts, except as specified in said section. * * * >H * “§ 4. Alienation of homestead. “Section 4: —Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent the holder of a homestead from alienating his or her homestead so exempted by deed or mortgage duly ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The status of a homestead which the Constitution impresses upon property under certain circumstances does not change the nature of the estate in the property owned by the head of a family residing in this state, but merely exempts such property from certain liabilities to which it would otherwise be subject, and limits the owner’s inherent power of alienation, by making such property exempt from forced sale under process of any court, and by making the real estate inalienable without the joint consent of the husband and wife, when that relation exists.”
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.