Noll v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2008
15 state decisions
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 Nixon v. Cydon Lodge No. 5 · Foster Lumber Co. v. Harlan County Bank · Shuler v. Lashhorn · Hill v. Gill · Greeno v. Barnard
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The general rule is that a mortgage given for the unpaid part of the purchase price, simultaneously with a deed for the property and as a part of the same transaction, takes precedence of prior judgments and all other existing and subsequent claims and liens of every kind against the mortgagor. (Foster v. Bank, 71 Kan. 158 , 80 Pac. 49 , 114 A. S. R. 470, 6 Ann. Cas. 44; Mortgage Co. v. Winters, 94 Kan. 615 , 146 Pac. 1012 , Ann. Cas. 1916C 956; Kuehn v. National Bank, 117 Kan. 717 , 232 Pac. 1060 ; 41 C. J. 528; 19 R. C. L. 416.) Although it has been held in some cases that purchase-money mortgages are subordinate to liens for work authorized by the vendor or done with his knowledge or consent. (See White v. Kincade, 95 Kan. 466 , 148 Pac. 607 , Ann. Cas. 1916B 667.) For a note on priority as between mechanics’ liens and purchase- money mortgage, see 72 A. L. R. 1516. . . . The judgment of the lower court allowing the mechanics’ liens priority was erroneous. The appellant should have been allowed a first lien insofar as the purchase price included in its mortgage is concerned, the mechanics’ liens should have been allowed as coordinate second liens, and the balance of appellants’ mortgages should have been allowed as a third lien.” (pp. 683-686.) (See, also, G. S. 1935, 67-305, and Home Owners’ Loan Corp. v. Humphrey, 148 Kan. 779 , 85 P. 2d 7 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Finnegan v. Ihinger
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.