Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 204 VA 199 - Madbeth, Inc. v. Weade

Madbeth, Inc. v. Weade’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Tullidge v. Board of Supervisors (1990), Darby v. Keeran (1973)

5 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

80196319701980199020002010decided

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 Rinehart & Dennis Co. v. McArthur · Blair v. Rorer's Administrator · Cogito v. Dart · Harris v. Scott · White v. Bott

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

  1. “A marketable title is one which is free from liens and encumbrances; one which discloses no serious defects and is dependent for its validity upon no doubtful questions of law or fact; one which will not expose the purchaser to the hazard of litigation or embarrass him in the peaceable enjoyment of the land; one which a reasonable well-informed and prudent person, acting upon business principles and with full knowledge of the facts and their legal significance, would be willing to accept, with the assurance that he, in turn, could sell or mortgage the property at its fair value.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The burden was on the plaintiffs, when apparent defects in the title were called to their attention, to remove the defects or to show that the title was otherwise marketable. They have failed to follow either course. Under such circumstances, they should not be heard to say that the defendant breached the contract by refusing to accept a title which they, themselves, were unwilling to sustain. McAllister v. Harman, supra, 101 Va. at pp. 25, 26, 42 S.E. 920 . Hendricks & als. v. Gillespie, 25 Gratt. 66 Va. 181, 197, 198.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.