Knight v. Ferrante’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Knights attack the sufficiency of the bill and intervening petition because, they say, the statements of account incorporated in or filed with these pleadings do not meet the requirements of Code § 43-22, in that they are not itemized and do not sufficiently show the amount and character of the work done or materials furnished. They rely upon . . . [citations omitted]. These cases deal with the sufficiency of the account which was required under the former statute (Pollard’s Code of 1904, § 2476) to be filed “in the clerk’s office” in perfecting a lien. We held that such an account was “one of the most important steps in the establishment of a mechanic’s lien” and that the requirement of the statute must be substantially complied with . . . [citation omitted]. In the present case, we are not concerned with an account which is required to be recorded as an integral part of the lien. The present statute requires the recordation of a memorandum of the lien instead of an account. Code § 43-4 ff.; Burks Pleading and Practice, 4th Ed., § 459, p. 890. Here we are concerned with the account which Code § 43-22 requires to be filed with the plaintiff’s pleadings for the purpose of giving information as to the particulars of the claim. There is no suggestion in that section that particularity in the account is jurisdictional, or that lack of particularity is fatal and requires a dismissal of the claim. It is a long-settled practice in this jurisdiction that when a defendant is not s”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Springfield Engineering Corp. v. Three Score Development Corp.

2. “[U]nder Code § 43-18, the subcontractor may claim through the general contractor, he is not obliged to do so. Under § 43-7 the subcontractor may perfect his own independent lien. As is said in Burks Pleading and Practice, 4th Ed., § 460, p. 893, "If the subcontractor wishes to take out his independent lien, he may do so by doing just what the general contractor is required to do. . . but the amount secured by this lien cannot exceed the amount in which the owner is indebted to the general contractor at the time the notice is given, or shall thereafter become indebted to the general contractor upon his contract with the general contractor for such structure. . . ." It is conceded that in the present case the subcontractors perfected their respective liens and gave notice thereof to the owners in the manner required by Code § 43-7. Having done so, each thereby obtained a lien on the property independent of the lien of the general contractor, the only limitation being that the amount of the subcontractor's lien, as § 43-7 says, shall not exceed the amount in which the owners were indebted to the general contractor at the time the notice was given, or thereafter became indebted to the general contractor upon his contract for the construction of the building. Thus, except as to the limitation on the funds to which the subcontractors may look for payment of their claims, they do not claim through the general contractor, but independently of him. Id. at 249-250.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robinson v. Herrell Construction Co.

3. “If the subcontractor wishes to take out his independent lien, he may do so by doing just what the general contractor is required to do. . . but the amount secured by this lien cannot exceed the amount in which the owner is indebted to the general contractor at the time the notice is given, or shall thereafter become indebted to the general contractor upon his contract with the general contractor for such structure. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robinson v. Herrell Construction Co.