Walker v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 21 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under the conceded facts in this case, Kudner’s fore.closure sale and purchase of the property as an entirety, and not in distinct lots or parcels, was a palpable disregard of the plain provisions of section 11139, 3 Comp. Laws (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 13934). To have the mortgaged subdivision sold in separate parcels was a substantial right of the owners of the fee, designed to protect the various interests of separate owners from prejudice or loss. This provision of the statute has several times been passed upon by this court and sale made in violation of it defeated. Lee v. Mason, 10 Mich. 403 ; Crane v. Sumner, 31 Mich. 199 ; Clark v. Stilson, 36 Mich. 482 ; Durm v. Fish, 46 Mich. 312 ; Keyes v. Sherwood, 71 Mich. 516 ; Hawes v. Insurance Co., 109 Mich. 324 ( 63 Am. St. Rep. 581 ); O’Connor v. Keenan, 132 Mich. 646 . These decisions settle beyond possibility of doubt that the statutory requirement violated in this case is not merely directory, that the irregularity went to the foundation of the purchaser’s title, and the sale was invalid.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jerome v. Coffin

2. “The mere lapse of time does not constitute laches, unless the circumstances were such as to make the delay blamable. Whether the delay has been culpable or not may obviously depend upon many facts and considerations, such as the length of time (which cannot be fixed by any definite rule, this being a subject of discretion under the circumstances of each case), the knowledge of the facts, actual or imputable, the consequences as respects others than the plaintiffs, and perhaps other things.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Olitkowski v. St. Casimir's Savings & Loan Ass'n

3. ““Where the situation of neither party has changed materially, and the delay of one has not put the other in a worse condition, the defense of laches cannot as a rule be recognized. Parker v. Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252 ( 34 S. W. 209 , 31 L. R. A. 706).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Howe v. Patrons' Mutual Fire Ins.