Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 Ark. App. 212 - King v. Powell

85 Ark. App. 212 - King v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

2 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably 100 Ark. App. 364 - Graftenreed v. Seabaugh (2007), 101 Ark. App. 23 - Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc. v. Way (2007)

2 district · 22 state decisions

160200420102020decided

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 Edwards v. Stills · Baughman v. State · Wheeler Motor Co., Inc. v. Roth · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lee · Conagra, Inc. v. Strother

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

  1. “If the answer to an interrogatory requires you to assess damages against Mr. Clay King in favor of Linda Powell, you will do so in the following manner: 1. If you find that Ms. Powell’s intended use of the damaged or destroyed trees was for ornamental or shade purposes, then you will award damages equal to the value of the damaged or destroyed trees, if any, plus the cost of replacing stone or soil displaced or removed, if any. 2. Otherwise, you will award damages equal to the difference in the fair market value of Ms. Powell’s property before and after the trespass.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) the party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted on or must so act that the party asserting estoppel has a right to believe the other party so intended; (3) the party asserting estoppel must be ignorant of the facts; and (4) the party asserting estoppel must rely on the other’s conduct to his detriment.”
    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.