Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 CAL 461 - Goodenow v. Ewer

Goodenow v. Ewer’s Empirical Analysis

1860

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
12
states following
May 2001
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently May 2001 · most notably 22 Cal. 2d 263 - Salter v. Ulrich (1943), Sichler v. Look (1892)

1 federal appellate · 60 state decisions — followed in 12 states

90186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 McMillan v. Richards · Whitney v. Higgins · Nagle v. Macy · Belloc v. Rogers · Kohler v. Kohler

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

  1. ““A mortgagor, when he has not disposed of his interest, is a necessary party to a suit for a foreclosure and sale under our law, even though no personal claim be asserted against him. The fact that a mortgage is executed upon the premises does not, of itself, authorize proceedings for their sale without making him a party. He has a right to be heard before his estate can be subjected to sale to satisfy an alleged lien, without reference to any personal claim against himself. If he has parted with the estate, his grantee stands in his shoes, and possesses the same right to contest the lien and to object to the sale. The object of the sale is to subject such estate as the mortgagor held at the time to the satisfaction of the lien which he created, and if that estate has been disposed of, a decree directing its sale without the presence of its owner would be a mere arbitrary act, condemning, without hearing, one man’s property to pay another man’s debt.””
    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.