Janney v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate ·

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

1. ““ * * * We believe that a clear distinction can properly be made between sales of motor vehicles, when title (or ownership or general property) is supposed to pass between the parties to the transaction, and other claims or liens less than title or ownership. It might well be that these recordation provisions are mandatory as to sales of motor vehicles in that they are designed for three very definite purposes: (1) To suppress automobile thefts; (2) to provide the state with a convenient and accessible record of title for tax purposes; (3) to provide a convenient and accessible method of identifying the ownership of an automobile for police purposes in connection with its operation on the highways of the state. These three reasons for attaching hard, deterrent results to any failure to comply with recordation statutes in connection with automobiles, do not exist as to liens or other claims less than title. Normally, one who has beneficial title to an automobile would be the one who would operate it on the highway, would pay the taxes and would be most concerned in preventing a theft of the car. The criminal sanctions under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Act, we think, were enacted primarily with reference to those having complete ownership, or at least beneficial title, as distinguished from security title or any lesser measure of interest in the automobile.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Corp. v. Myers Motors, Inc. · Bank of New York v. Leake (In Re Wuerzberger)

2. ““The general law is pretty well settled that, apart from statutory restrictions, an unrecorded chattel mortgage is good as between the parties. See 11 C.J. 511 and cases cited. # * ❖ * * * “It might be remarked in this connection that, since under the general law an unrecorded chattel mortgage is good as between the parties and registration statutes under their general philosophy are enacted for the benefit of third parties, the chattel mortgage should be good as between the parties unless the recordation statute either expressly declares the mortgage void as between the parties or indicates such invalidity of the chattel mortgage by necessary in-tendment or very clear implication. * * * * ' * * “Various states of the United States have adopted Motor Vehicle Codes containing registration provisions. A majority of the courts in these states have adopted the view that these statutes did not completely over-ride the common law, and that transactions in such vehicles, which were hitherto valid under the general law, still, remain valid as between the parties. * # * * >jc “An analytical and verbal exegesis of the recordation provisions of the Virginia stat ute confirms us in our view that it was not the intention of the law makers to render void as between the parties, unrecorded liens and other claims less than title or ownership. * * * * * * “Again, in Section 17 of the (Virginia) Motor Vehicle Act, Code § 2154(64), we find: ‘Said certificate of title, when issued by the divi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Staunton Industrial Loan Corp. v. Wilson

3. ““A noncompliance with the statute subjects the seller to fine and imprisonment and defeats the recovery based upon a contract obnoxious to the statutory requirements. The imposition of the penalty is to protect the public against fraud and to compel the proper registration of titles.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Smith