Burdine v. Sewell’s Empirical Analysis
1926
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably 65 So. 2d 849 - Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp. (1953), J. C. Vereen & Sons, Inc. v. Houser (1936)
4 federal appellate · 69 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 Batchelder v. State Capital Bank · Warden v. Balch · Sewell v. Burdine · Shannon v. City of Omaha · State v. Cunningham
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a privilege without profit, which the owner of one tenement has a right to enjoy in respect to that tenement in or over the tenement of another person, whereof the latter is obliged to suffer or refrain from doing something on his own tenement for the advantage of the former.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““An easement being an interest in land, can be created only by grant, the existence of which may be established by the production of a deed expressly declaring it, or may be inferred by construction, from the terms and effect of an existing deed, or evidence of the grant may be derived from its having been so long enjoyed as to be regarded as' proof that a grant was originally made, though no deed is produced which contains it. In other words, there are three ways in which an easement may be created — first, by express grant; second, by implication; third, by prescription.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“`There are no words in the agreement to indicate that the rights of the respective parties therein are to extend to their successors in title. In other words, the covenants contained in the agreement are personal covenants, rather than covenants running with the respective lots.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jabour v. Toppino
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.