Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 12 WVA 246 - Davis v. Demming

Davis v. Demming’s Empirical Analysis

1877

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
4
states following
October 1980
most recently cited

1 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 1980 · most notably Carper v. Kanawha Banking & Trust Co. (1974), Vangilder v. Hoffman (1883)

1 district · 40 state decisions

120187718801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Sayward v. Carlson · Kane v. People · Horn v. . Keteltas · Roberts's Administrator v. Cocke · Clark v. Henry

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

  1. ““Parol evidence, the declarations and conduct of the parties at the time of the transaction or subsequently, as well as all the circumstances attending or surrounding the same are received to show, whether the transaction was a conditional sale, or mortgage; and this is done though the deed, or bill of sale be absolute on its face. Robertson v. Campbell, 2 Call 354 ; King v. Newman, 2 Munf. 40 ; Lamb v. Shears, 1 Wend. 437 ; Horner v. Kiteltas, 46 N. Y. 605 . If there be no evidence other than the papers executed, to show directly, what was the intention of the parties at the time of the transaction, the following circumstances are regarded as having great weight in determining whether the transaction was conditional or absolute sale, or mortgage. If the alleged price given for the property was a reasonable price, it is a circumstance tending to show, that it was a sale and purchase at a price fixed by the parties at the time; if however the price is grossly inadequate, it raises a strong presumption that the real understanding of the parties was, that the vendor should have a right to redeem, and that the transaction was really a mortgage. The fact, that by the papers executed no such right exists, will be considered a matter of no importance, if it is shown by proof or surrounding circumstances, that a security or pledge for a debt was intended; for a party is never allowed to take from his debtor by any form of contract his right to redeem.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.