Holt v. Henley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 federal appellate · 28 district · 36 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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The reasonable and usual interpretation of such statutes is to confine their effect, so far as may be, to property rights established after they were passed. * * * The opposite construction * * ® would Impute to the act of Congress an intent to take away rights lawfully retained and unimpeachable at the moment when they took their start.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Deupree v. Watson · Louisville Woolen Mills v. Johnson

2. ““We turn now to the claim of the mortgagees. This is based upon the clause extending the mortgage to plant that may be acquired .and placed upon the premises while the mortgage is in force, coupled with the subsequent attachment of the system to the freehold. But the foundation upon which all their rights depend is the Virginia statute giving priority to purchasers for value without notice over Holt’s unrecorded reservation of title; and as the mortgage deed was executed before the sprinkler system was put in, and the mortgagees made no advance on the faith of it, they were not purchasers for value as against Holt. York Manufacturing Co. v. Cassell, 201 U. S. 344 , 351, 352 [ 26 Sup. Ct. 481 , 50 L. Ed. 782 ]. There are no special facts to give them a better position in that regard. But, that being so, what reason can be given for not respecting Holt’s title as against them? The system was attached to the freehold, but it could be removed without any serious harm, for which complaint could be made against Holt, other than the loss of the system itself. Removal would not affect the integrity of the structure on which the mortgagees advanced. To hold that the mere fact of annexing the system to the freehold overrode the agreement that it should remain personalty and still belong to Holt would be to give a mystic importance to attachment by bolts and screws. For." as we have said, the mortgagees have no equity, and do not bring themselves within the statutory provision. We belie”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First Nat. Bank of Evanston v. Bank of Waynesboro · United States v. Security Industrial Bank

3. ““It is enough that the reasonable and usual interpretation of such statutes is to confine their effect, so far as may be, to property rights established after they were passed ... the most obvious if not the only way of reaching that result would be by taking the amendment to effect subsequently established rights alone. That is a familiar and natural mode of interpretation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Community National Bank & Trust Co. of New York v. Persky (In Re Persky)