Starkweather v. Jenner’s Empirical Analysis
216 U.S. 524 · 1910
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1968 · most notably Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Boyd (1913), Malone v. Young (1938)
22 federal appellate · 5 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Twin-Lick Oil Company v. Marbury · Pewabic Mining Co. v. Mason · Turner v. Sawyer · Allen v. Gillette
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘But it is plain that the principle which turns a cotenant into a trustee who buys for himself a hostile outstanding title, can have no proper application to a public sale of the common property, either under legal process or a power in a trust deed. In such a situation, the sale not being in any wise the result of collusion nor subject to the control of such a bidder, he is as free, all deceit and fraud out of the way, as any one of the general public.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Even a trastee has been held competent to purchase the trust property at a judicial sale which he has no interest in, nor [had] any part in bringing about, and which sale he in no way controls.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But it is said that Jeuner’s relation as tenant in common to appellant and those associated with him as owner of the property sold to pay off this paramount lien forbid his purchase. That there is such a community interest between those who hold a common title as to forbid one such cotenant from acquiring any benefit from the acquisition of an outstanding superior title is undeniable. That a court of equity upon timely application will convert such a purchasing tenant into a trustee for the common benefit is true. The doctrine is considered and applied in Rothwell v. Dewees, 2 Black, 613 , 17 L. Ed. 309 , and Turner v. Sawyer, 150 U. S. 578 , 14 Sup. Ct. 192, 37 L. Ed. 1189 . For much the same reason one tenant may not hold adversely the common property against another, though he may do so, if he act openly, and in that event the statute will run in his favor. Elder v. McClaskey, 17 C. C. A. 251 , 37 U. S. App. 199, 70 Fed. 542 . But it is plain that the principle which turns a cotenant into a trustee who buys for himself a hostile outstanding title can have no proper application to a public sale of the common property, either under legal process or a power in a trust doed. In such a situation, the sale not being in any wise the result of collusion, nor subject to the control of such a bidder, he is as free, all deceit and fraud out of the way, as any one of the general public. Even a trustee has been held competent to purchase the trust property at a judicial sale, which he”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Carter
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.