Loosemore v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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

1. ““The judgment giving priority to the lien of the attachment under these facts comes strictly within the decisions of this court in Ruggles v. Cannedy, 127 Cal. 291 [ 46 L.R.A. 371 , 53 P. 911 , 59 P. 827 ], and Alferitz v. Scott, 130 Cal. 474 , [ 62 P. 735 ], If it is thought that anything to the contrary to these decisions is held in Adlard v. Rodgers, 105 Cal. 327 [ 38 P. 889 ], it must be considered as superseded by the later decision of the court In Bank above cited. Lemon v. Wolff, 121 Cal. 272 [ 53 P. 801 ], also relied on by appellant, contains nothing bearing upon this case. It declares the sound and familiar principle that even a chattel mortgage void for lack of recordation or void for defective verification and acknowledgment may still be good between the parties, and that a mere creditor at large is not in a position to attack it, it being said that ‘Only a creditor who has acquired a lien upon the mortgaged property by virtue of some legal proceeding, or who is armed with some process authorizing seizure of the property, can question the compliance with these formalities.’ In this case the creditor had acquired a lien and was armed with process. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 72 Cal. App. 2d 629 - Rolando v. Everett