Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 U.S. 242 - Teal v. Walker

Teal v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

111 U.S. 242 · 1884

Citation profile

250
cited by 250 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
29
states following
April 1996
most recently cited

79 federal appellate · 28 district · 63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 250 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1996 · most notably Waterman v. Mackenzie (1891), Helvering v. Lazarus (1939)

79 federal appellate · 28 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 29 states

570188418901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Railroad Company v. Lockwood · Alexander Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company · Kountze v. Omaha Hotel Co. · Bank of Kentucky v. Adams Express Co.

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

  1. ““The error, if it he an error, of overruling the demurrer could have been reviewed on motion in arrest of judgment, and is open to review upon this writ of error. When the declaration fails to state a cause of action, and clearly shows that upon the-case as stated the plaintiff cannot recover, and the demurrer of the defendant thereto is overruled, he may answer upon leave and go to trial, without losing the right to have the judgment upon the verdict reviewed for the error in overruling the demurrer. The error is not waived by answer, nor is it cured by verdict. The question, therefore, whether the complaint in this case states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is open for consideration.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A mortgage of real property shall not be deemed a conveyance so as to enable the owner of the mortgage to recover possession of the real property without a foreclosure and sale according to law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “It is, of course, competent for the parties to provide, in the mortgage, for the payment of rents and profits to the mortgagee, while the mortgagor remains in possession. But when the mortgage contains no such provision, and even where the income is expressly pledged as security for the mortgage debt, with the right in the mortgagee to take possession upon the failure of the mortgagor to perform the conditions of the mortgage, the general rule is that the mortgagee is not entitled to the rents and profits of the mortgaged premises until he takes actual possession, or until possession is taken, in his behalf, by a receiver, or until, in proper form, he demands and is refused possession.”
    2 later decisions 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.