Foskuhl v. Herzer’s Empirical Analysis
1907
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 1920
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Tarpenning v. Cannon · McAlpine v. Reicheneker · Everett v. Lusk
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where known government corners are shown, or, in cases where they have disappeared, if their location can be ascertained, the monuments must govern, and the field notes of the government survey must be disregarded.” (Foskuhl v. Herzer, 77 Kan. 809 , syl. ¶ 1, 91 Pac. 56 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Nelson
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.