Gibson v. Lyon’s Empirical Analysis
115 U.S. 439 · 1885
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1983 · most notably Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917), Black & White Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Brown & Yellow Taxicab & Transfer Co. (1928)
18 federal appellate · 29 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Burgess v. Seligman · Carroll County v. Smith · Britton v. Thornton · Brobst v. Brock
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a claimant) certainly cannot be permitted to claim both under and against the same deed; to insist upon its efficacy to confer a benefit and repudiate a burden with which it has qualified it; to affirm a part and reject a part.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is true that the statute of Pennsylvania, by which the sale ordered by the Orphans ’ Court was authorized, act of April 18, 1853, provides that ‘by every such public sale the premises sold shall be discharged from all liens;’ and it is also true that the sale prayed for in this instance was of the premises, ‘clear, and discharged of all liens in the hands of the purchaser,’ and that the sale to Rice, approved and confirmed by the court, was for the sum of $10,500, the full price and consideration of the purchase; yet it is equally true, as appears from the recitals in the deed to Rice, which was duly acknowledged before the Orphans’ Court, that of the consideration, as finally agreed upon between the parties, there was actually paid in cash only $5,500, the remainder being represented by the existing mort gage to the Reliance Mutual Insurance Company, under and subject to which the conveyance was made, approved and accepted. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The sanction of the court to a conveyance under proceedings and judgment for foreclosure of a mortgage in the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia being a judicial act, such a deed describing the estate as conveyed subject to an outstanding mortgage, estops the grantee from denying the validity of the mortgage.””
1 later decision 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.