Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 OR 142 - Cooke v. Cooper

Cooke v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

1889

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
10
states following
June 1966
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1966 · most notably Spect v. Spect (1891), Burns v. Hiatt (1906)

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 10 states

110188918901900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Shriver v. . Shriver · Miner v. . Beekman · Madison Av. Bap. Ch. v. . Oliver St. Bap. Ch. · Trimm v. . Marsh · Phyfe v. Riley

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

  1. ““If for any cause in the foreclosure suit the proceeding is ineffectual to foreclose the mortgage, and the mortgagee purchases at a sale under such void proceeding, and enters into the possession under such sale, his relation to the mortgaged premises is that of a mortgagee in possession. * * * If the mortgage was not foreclosed, it remained in full force and unsatisfied, and by the conveyance set out in the findings was owned by Cooper at tlio time he placed the erections on the lots, and in such case his relation to the lands was that of a mortgagee in possession. * * * While the mortgagee is not permitted to maintain a possessory action to recover the mortgaged premises by reason of the default of the mortgagor, still, if he can make peaceable entry upon the mortgaged premises after condition broken, he may do so, and maintain such possession against the mortgagor and every person claiming under him subsequent to the mortgage, subject to be defeated only by the payment of the debt.””
    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.