Lindt v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2019
22 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 McGuire v. McGuire · Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves · Ferguson Ranch, Inc. v. Murray · Mettee v. Kemp
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“convenience and reason should prevail in the establishment of roads,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(a)Any person whose land has no outlet to, nor connection with a public road, may file an application in writing with the board of county commissioners in the county where his land is located for a private road leading from his land to some convenient public road. The application shall contain the following information: (i) The legal description of the land owned by the applicant to which access is sought and a statement that the land is located within the county; (ii) A specific statement as to why the land has no legally enforceable access, other than a waterway, and whether the land is surrounded on all sides by land owned by another person or persons or a natural or man-made barrier making access unreasonably costly; (iii) A description of the applicant's efforts to purchase a legally enforceable access to a public road; (iv) A description sufficient to identify the general location of any access routes proposed by the applicant; (v) The legal description and the names and addresses of the affected parties of all land over which any proposed access routes would cross. Affected parties includes the owners of record, owners of recorded easements and rights of way and any lessee, mortgagee or occupant of the land over which any proposed road would cross and may include the state of Wyoming; and (vi) A statement as to whether any actions of the applicant or any person with the consent and knowledge of the applicant, caused the applicant's land to lose or to not have any legal”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Lindts claim the damage award is improper. -It is evident from the proceedings before the Board that the directions given the Board by the district court in its remand order were not observed or understood. Therefore, we remand to the district court with directions that the district court remand to the Board and the Board reassemble the viewers and appraisers, or if necessary a different body of viewers and appraisers, and those viewers and appraisers assess damages as follows: (1) determine the value of the entirety of the Lindts' affected land before the private road was established; then, (2) determine the value of the Lindts' remaining land after the private road is in place; (8) subtract the "after" value from the "before" value, which then equals the damages due the Lindts. Coronado Oil Co. v. Grieves, 642 P.2d 423, 433 (Wyo.1982); and see generally Mettee v. Kemp, 236 Kan. 781 , 696 P.2d 947, 949 (1985) (discussing Kansas statute which enumerates factors which may be considered in the "before-after" analysis).”
2 later decisions 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.