Dillow v. Magraw’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2013
8 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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams · Heckrotte v. Riddle · Brashears v. Collison · Sandler v. New Jersey Realty Title Insurance
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.
“(a) The owner of the properly as disclosed by a search of the land records of the county, of the records of the register of wills of the county, and of the records of any court of law or equity of the' county. (b) If the property be subject to a ground rent, the parties defendant shall be the owner of the fee-simple title and the owner of the leasehold title as disclosed by a search of the land records of the county, of the records of the register of wills of the county and of the records of any court of law or equity of the county. (c) Any mortgagee of the property or his assignee of record, named as such in any unreleased mortgage recorded among the land records of the county. (d) The State of Maryland may be made a party defendant in any action to foreclose the right of redemption. (e) The county, or Baltimore City, where the property is located may be made a party defendant in any action to foreclose the right of redemption. (f) It shall not be necessary to name as defendant any other person having or claiming to have any right, title, interest, claim, lien or equity of redemption in and to the property sold by the collector. Any or all of such persons may be included as defendants by the designation "all persons having or claiming to have any interest in property.....(giving a description of the property in substantially the same form as the description which appears on the Collector’s tax bill).” Any or all such persons may be designated throughout the proceeding by the”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Magraw v. Dillow“[A] special warranty does not protect the grantee from claims of superior or paramount title. A covenant of special warranty, in contrast to a covenant of general warranty, is limited as to the persons or claims to which it operates. It protects the covenantee against claims by, though or under the grantor, but does not warrant title “against a claim under a title against, or superior to, his grantor.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ochse v. Henry“special warranties [are] distinct covenants that [the grantor is] not to be answerable for any losses which might occur from the assertion of a title superior to his own; that if he is required to protect [the grantee] from [claims of superior title], he is in effect made to give [the grantee] all the benefit which could be derived from a general warranty____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ochse v. Henry
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.