Weiprecht v. Ripple’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2017
2 district · 4 state decisions
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 Price v. United States · United States v. State of Oklahoma · United States v. Texas · Henry G. Davis & Co. v. Gemmell · People ex rel. Farrington v. Bristol
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * we do not reach the question he has stressed [claim of equitable lien in after-acquired property] for the simple reason that there is no mention whatever in the chattel mortgage of after-acquired property to which a lien of any sort could have attached. Generally, if the mortgage fails to specify an intention to create a lien on after-acquired merchandise, no lien will arise. Or, stated conversely, if there is an intention that after-acquired merchandise shall ‘feed the lien’ of the mortgage, a specific provision to that effect must be included in the mortgage. * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“)', Weiprecht v. Ripple, 217 Md. 337, 350 , 143 A.2d 62 (1958) (“A lien cannot be obtained on property in custodia legis,”
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.