Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 161 U.S. 247 - Lynch v. Murphy

Lynch v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

161 U.S. 247 · 1896

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Grannis v. Ordean (1914), The Title & Document Restoration Co. v. Kerrigan (1906)

17 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

1201896190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Arndt v. Griggs · Hart v. Sansom · Watkins v. . Reynolds · 29 N.J. Eq. 222 - Executors of Gale v. Morris

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

  1. “The record does not operate as a constructive notice, unless the instrument is duly executed, and properly acknowl edged or proved, so as to entitle it to be recorded ... If a writing should be placed upon the records with any of these preliminaries entirely omitted or defectively performed, such a record would be a mere voluntary act, and would have no effect upon the rights of subsequent purchasers or incumbranc-ers....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The doctrine as to the registration of deeds being con struct'ive notice as to all subsequent purchasers is not to be understood of all deeds and conveyances which may be cle facto registered, but of such only as are authorized and required by law to be registered, and are duly registered in compliance with law. If they are not authorized or required to be registered, or the registry itself is not in compliance with the law, the act of registration is treated as a mere nullity; and then the subsequent purchaser is affected only by such actual notice as would amount to a fraud.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““* * * That deed of trust was inoperative as a legal instrument. There being no actual notice, and the recording of the defective deed not operating as constructive notice, the alleged equitable lien is wholly inoperative against those holding under the decree below.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.