Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 737 SW2D 536 - Stracener v. Bailey

Stracener v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 2012

6 state decisions

301986199020002010decided

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 Tallmadge v. . the East River Bank · Texas Co. v. Aycock · Sanborn v. McLean · 11 Smith & H. 239 - Ridley v. Haiman · Williams Realty Co. v. Robey

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

  1. “Here there is no question about the contract: the owner of certain houses in the square sells land adjoining, with a covenant from the purchaser ... And it is now contended, not that the vendee could violate the contract, but that he might sell the piece of land, and that the purchaser from him may violate it without this Court having any power to interfere. If that were so, it would be impossible for an owner of land to sell part of it without incurring the risk of rendering what he retains worthless. It is said that, the covenant being one which does not run with the land, this court cannot enforce it; but the question is, not whether the covenant runs with the land, but whether a party shall be permitted to use the land in a manner inconsistent with the contract entered into by his vendor, and with notice of which he purchased.... That the question does not depend upon whether the covenant runs with the land is evident from this, that if there was a mere agreement and no covenant, this Court would enforce it against a party purchasing with notice of it; for if an equity is attached to the property by the owner, no one purchasing with notice of that equity can stand in a different situation from the party from whom he purchased.”
    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.