Harper v. Stumpff’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 1951 · most notably City of Duncan v. Abrams (1935), Stumpff v. Harper (1923)
25 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 Brown v. Spofford · Wynn v. Tallapoosa County Bank · Wells v. Shriver · Gagnon v. French Lick Springs Hotel Co. · Erwin v. Ennis
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where two separate actions depending- on the same facts were consolidated and tried together for convenience only, but the verdicts and judgments were separate, it was improper to include both in a single writ of error.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“■‘The plaintiffs in error did not have a right to try the issues under the Occupying Claimants Act until the judgment against them in ejectment had become final- Their cause of action did not accrue until the ejectment judgment became final. That judgment was a necessaary part of their cause of action. They had a right to treat the judgment as final and then try the issues raised under the Occupying Claimants Act, or they had a right to appeal from the judgment in ejectment, but they could not do both. The right to recover under the Occupying Claimants Act is inconsistent with a claim of ownership and right of possession. “This appeal cannot be maintained, for it seeks to reverse two judgments in one appeal. By this appeal, the plaintiffs in error are asking this court to reverse the first judgment and decree them to be the owners of the land and entitled to hold possession. By this same appeal, they are asking this court to reverse the second judgment and hold they are entitled to recover from the defendant in error under the Occupying Claimants Act for the value of the improvements placed on the land which they are asking this court to say belongs to them. These two judgments were not consolidated, and in their nature could not be consolidated. This is not like where two cases have been consolidated in the trial court and have been appealed under one petition in error and one case-made. “The plaintiffs in error had the election of remedies; to either defer the trial of thei”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Browne v. Folsom
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.