Stockly v. Doil’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2021
10 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 Musk v. Nelson · S.D. Warren Co. v. Board of Environmental Protection · Bonk v. McPherson · Dexter v. Town of Norway · Eaton v. European & North American Railway Co.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“§ 7552. Injury to land, forest products or agricultural products. 2. Prohibitions. Without permission of the owner a person may not: A.Cut down, destroy, damage or carry away any forest product, ornamental or fruit tree ... or property of any kind from land not that person's own. 3. Measure of Damages. This subsection governs the measurement of damages resulting from a violation of subsection 2. A. When ... forest products have been destroyed or carried away, the owner may recover as damages either the value of the lost products themselves or the diminution in value of the real estate as a whole resulting from the violation, whichever is greater. B. For lost trees, the owner may claim in lieu of market value the forfeiture amounts determined in Title 17, section 2510, subsections 2 and 3.... 4. Damages recoverable. Damages are recoverable as follows. B. A person who intentionally or knowingly violates subsection 2 is liable to the owner for 3 times the owner's damages as measured under subsection 3 or $500, whichever is greater. 5. Costs and fees. In addition to damages, interest and costs, the owner may also recover from the person who violates subsection 2 the reasonable costs of professional services necessary for determining damages and proving the claim, provided that the person first has written notice or actual knowledge that a claim is being asserted. The amount awarded for professional services may not exceed 50% of the damages recovered pursuant to subsection 4 plus”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Any person who authorizes the cutting of timber or wood on the person’s own property, when the cutting involves an area of 10 or more acres, shall clearly mark any property lines that are within 200 feet of the area to be cut. If any such person fails to clearly mark such property lines and if the person or persons who are authorized to cut then cut timber or wood on abutting land without the authorization of the owner of that land, the person who failed to mark the person’s property lines is liable in a civil action, in double damages, to that owner of the abutting land. These damages are in addition to any damages to which the owner of the abutting land may be entitled under section 7552.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fuschetti v. Murray“A. A person who negligently or without fault violates subsection 2 is liable to the owner for 2 times the owner’s damages as measured under subsection 3 or $250, whichever is greater. B. A person who intentionally or knowingly violates subsection 2 is liable to the owner for 3 times the owner's damages as measured under subsection 3 or $500, whichever is greater.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dionne v. LeClerc
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.