Mizen v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2012 · most notably Kronovet v. Lipchin (1980), D'AOUST v. Diamond (2012)
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 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 Washington Fire Insurance v. Kelly · Brewer v. Herbert · Lannay v. Wilson · Aukam v. Zantzinger · Timms v. Shannon ex rel. Shannon
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' “If we disregard technicalities, and look only at the actualities, the case is rather a simple one. The trustee attempted to sell mortgaged property to a purchaser who happened to be wholly worthless and irresponsible, but the sale was never consummated because the purchaser failed to comply with its terms [the case here]. The property was then resold at the purchaser’s risk, but the proceeds of the resale were not sufficient to pay the mortgage debt. Prior to the resale the title to the property remained in the mortgagors, because it could not have been divested except by deed, and no deed was given, and after the resale a part of the mortgage debt still remained due and unsatisfied [the exact same situation exists in the present case].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simard v. White““[W]hen the trustee allowed the sale to be ratified and stand, ‘said Laurel Development Company [the defaulting purchaser at the first sale] was thereby accepted not merely as the equitable owner thereafter of said property, but as the party solely entitled to any of the surplus should such resale have resulted in a surplus, and solely liable for any deficiency resulting from said resale, and that said trustee should be required to prosecute his [deficiency] claim against said Laurel Development Company [the defaulting purchaser of the first sale] for this reason.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simard v. White““[N]either the ratification of the sale to an irresponsible and defaulting purchaser, nor the resale at the purchaser’s risk, could affect the liability of the mortgagors for the payment of the mortgage debt, nor their liability for the payment of any deficiency resulting from the inadequacy of the mortgaged property to satisfy that debt.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simard v. White
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.