Andrus v. Bagley’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2019
7 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 Church v. Meadow Springs Ranch Corp., Inc. · STATE, ETC. v. Santiago
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because [plaintiff] had no interest, he had no standing to bring the [quiet title] action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[the purpose of a quiet title action is to perfect an interest in property that exists at the time suit is filed. Because Andrus had no interest, he had no standing to bring the action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“had no interest at the time [the] action was filed.”
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.