Speizman v. Guill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 18 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The remedies open to a chattel mortgagee when the mortgage becomes past due are set forth in Stokes v. Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company, 130 S. C. 521, 126 S. E. 649 , 652: ‘When a chattel mortgage becomes past due, the mortgagee has three remedies for realizing upon his security: (1) He may peaceably take possession of the chattel, advertise and sell and apply the proceeds of sale to his secured debt, paying the surplus, if any, to the mortgagor; (2) if possession be refused, he may institute claim and delivery proceedings to get possession of the chattel for the purpose of sale as in the first instance; (3) he may institute a proceeding similar to the foreclosure of a mortgage of real estate.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. CAYE & CO., INC. v. Saul · NATIONAL BANK OF SC v. Daniels

2. ““ ‘Where it is doubtful upon what theory the pleading was drawn, the Court will construe it according to theory it deems most in accord with the facts alleged. The pleading should be construed so as to prevent parties from being misled. Thus it has been said that the Court should consider what the opposite party had reason to understand was the issue tendered. The theory of the pleading is not determined from the legal verbiage or the name or style given to the pleading, or the epithets found therein, or from the statements or concessions of counsel which form no part of the record. Allegations not in harmony with the theory of the pleading will be considered surplusage. The Court will, when possible, sustain the theory intended by the pleader. But that a certain theory was evidently contemplated by the person who drew the pleading is of no avail as against the theory shown by the facts alleged.’ 49 C. J., p. 118, § 110.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bramlett v. Young

3. “If the character of the action appears with sufficient clearness in the body of the complaint, it must control, unaffected by the prayer for relief or the intention or characterization of the pleader.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Comm'rs of Pub. Works of Laurens v. City of Fountain Inn