Stout v. Rigney’s Empirical Analysis
107 F. 545 · 1901
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 1969
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Rogers v. Brown · Kelly v. Hurt · Reed v. Painter · Allen v. Ranson · Lewis v. Schwenn
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.
““The testimony in the case shows that the trustee’s deed, which purported to convey the title In fee to Hamilton De Graw, was duly recorded In Carroll county, Mo., on the day it was executed, to wit, on December 7, 1875, when it became constructive notice to ail the world of its contents; that De Graw took possession of the property under said deed on January 1, 1876; that he subsequently conveyed the land as his own to other parties; and that the title, after various transfers, became vested eventually In the defendant Stout. The proof also shows open and notorious possession of the property by De Graw and those claiming under him from January 1, 1876, until the present action was instituted, and that in the meantime there had been no assertion by the complainant of her right to redeem, or any recognition of that right by any of the successive occupants of the land. In view of these facts, we entertain no doubt that De Graw and each of his successors in interest entered into possession of the land claiming to be the absolute owners thereof. The dominion which they respectively exercised over the property is consistent with that view, and wholly inconsistent with the theory that they assumed possession of the property merely as mortgagees to protect a lien which they had acquired. Nor do we believe it to have been essential to render their possession adverse that they should have notified the complainant that they were holding the land adversely, and would dispute her right t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.