Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 137 F.1d 389 - Schauble v. Schulz

Schauble v. Schulz’s Empirical Analysis

137 F. 389 · 1905

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2000

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

4019051910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Stephens v. Cherokee Nation · Terry v. Anderson · Sohn v. Waterson · Jeannie Wilson v. Adam Iseminger H · Vance v. Vance

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.

  1. “"The conveyance did not create a new right, but rather perfected the right existing under the contract, and, to give effect to what was plainly the intention of the parties, the perfected title related back to the date of the contract. Peyton v. Desmond, 63 C.C.A. 651, 661 , 129 Fed. 1 . It is now the generally accepted rule that the possession of a vendee who enters under an executory contract for the sale of land, and subsequently receives a conveyance in fulfillment thereof, is adverse from the time of the entry as to all the world except the vendor. (Cases cited.) And from the moment the vendee by compliance with the conditions of the contract entitles himself to a conveyance his possession is adverse as to the vendor. (Cases cited.) It is also the accepted rule in the state of North Dakota that a vendee in possession under a contract like the one before us is the equitable and beneficial owner of the land, and that the vendor holds the legal title in trust for him, and as security for his compliance with the conditions of the contract. (Cases cited.) The conclusion follows that the appellee was from the time of his entry vested with sufficient title, as against the appellants, to come within the protection of the statute, which broadly includes `all titles.'" [ 137 F. 394 .]”
    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.