Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 MINN 289 - Barnard v. Schuler

Barnard v. Schuler’s Empirical Analysis

1907

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
4
states following
February 1997
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1997

8 state decisions

301907191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Hatton v. Holmes · Bank of Benson v. Hove · State ex rel. Heitkamp v. Ryland · Bennett v. Knowles

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

  1. ““A notary public is not a guarantor of the absolute correctness of his certificate of acknowledgment, nor does he undertake to certify that the person acknowledging the instrument owns or has any interest in the lands therein described; but hie does undertake to certify that the party personally appearing before him is known to him to be the person described in and who executed the instrument. If the notary does not personally know the party appearing before him, he should proceed with caution, and either decline to certify to- the acknowledgment or investigate the question of the identity of the party with such care and prudence as the gravity of the case demands, and ■only certify to his identity upon being clearly satisfied of the fact as a result of such investigation. If a notary public certifies to an acknowledgment of an instrument without such personal knowledge and investigation, he is guilty of negligence, and he and his sureties are liable for all damages proximately resulting therefrom.””
    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.