Norris v. Ile’s Empirical Analysis
1894
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Alderson v. Houston (1908), Harding v. American Glucose Co. (1899)
9 federal appellate · 52 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Bank v. Sherman · Supervisors v. Kennicott · Tilton v. Cofield · Miller v. Sherry · Murray v. Ballou
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Chancelor Kent has said, that lis pendens is no more than an adoption of the rule in a real action at common law, where, if the defendant aliens after the pendency of the writ, the judgment in the real action will overreach such alienation. (Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. Ch. 566 ). It was one of the ordinances of Lord Bacon, that ’no decree bindeth any that come in bona fide by conveyance from the defendant before the bill exhibited, and is made no party either by bill or order; but where he comes in pendente lite, and while the suit is in full prosecution, and without any color or allowance or privity of the court, there the decree bindeth.’ (Idem.) Whether the object of lis pendens be constructive notice, or to hold the subject of the suit, or res, within the power of the court so as to enable the court to give effect to its judgment or decree, the decision of the court will be binding not only on the litigant parties, but also on those who derive title under them by alienations made pending the suit. (2 Pom. Eq. Jur. sec. 632). The doctrine of lis pendens is founded upon public convenience and necessity. (Durand v. Lord, 115 Ill. 610 ). The lis pendens begins from the service of the summons or subpoena after the filing of the bill. (Grant v. Bennett, 96 Ill. 513 ). A purchaser from the defendant while the suit is pending acquires his interest subject to such decree as may be rendered on the hearing. If this were not the rule, parties might, by transferring their interests du”
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.