Storm v. Garnett’s Empirical Analysis
1924
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 1963
1 federal appellate · 9 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 New York Co v. Estill · Terry v. . Munger · Secor v. . Sturgis · Conrow v. . Little · Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co. v. Shutt
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.
““The evidence fails to show that this land was acquired for a home, or that the intention to occupy the same as a home was accompanied with any overt acts of preparation. The mere intention to occupy unimproved lands at some future time, unaccompanied with any act of preparation of the land for a home, such as the construction of buildings and making improvements thereon without unreasonable delay, is insufficient, to impress the land with the homestead character. Laurie et al. v. Crouch, 41 Okla. 589 , 139 Pac. 304 ; Hyde v. Ishmael, 42 Okla. 279 , 143 Pac. 1044 ; McFarland v. Coyle, 69 Okla. 248 , 172 Pac. 72 ; McCray v. Miller, 78 Okla. 16 , 184 Pac. 781 , 186 Pac. 1089 ; Merritt v. Park National Bank of Sulphur, 77 Okla. 148 , 187 Pac. 232 ; Johnson v. Johnston, 82 Okla. 259 , 200 Pac. 204 .””
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.