Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 158 Md. 638 - Groh v. Cohen

Groh v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Kline v. Inland Rubber Corp. (1949), Pagenhardt v. Walsh (1968)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 21 state decisions

100193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Dyson v. Simmons · Cramer v. Roderick · Valentine v. Seiss · Nelson v. Hagerstown Bank · Ressmeyer v. Norwood

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

  1. ““The statement thus made in the affidavits being fictitious, it is just as ineffective as if it had been omitted. The Code provision (article 21, § 33) that no mortgage ‘shall be valid except as between the parties thereto, unless there be endorsed thereon an oath or affirmation of the mortgagee that the consideration in said mortgage is true and bona fide as therein set forth’ cannot be satisfied by an affidavit which is not true in fact. The considerations stated in the mortgages in question purported to be loans to the persons signing the instruments as mortgagors, when in truth no such loans were ever made or contemplated. If the title had been conveyed primarily to the real purchaser and he had executed the mortgages which in terms secured loans for the payment of the purchase price and the cost of improvements, the mortgagees would have been fully protected from the liens of any pre-existing judgments against the mortgagor. Code, art. 66, § 4. But such a purpose does not justify or validate the use of affidavits which are illusory.””
    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.