Grayson v. Buffington’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2010
21 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 Blondell v. Turover · Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Co. · Lissau v. Smith · Busey v. Reese · Willard v. Ramsburg
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t is well settled that one who purchases real property, with actual knowledge of prior equities, is not protected as a bona fide purchaser, but such a purchaser takes the property subject to the known equities, which are enforceable against him to the same extent that they are enforceable against the vendor. Westpark, Inc. v. Seaton Land Co., 225 Md. 433, 450 , 171 A. 2d 736 [(1961)]; Blondell v. Turover, 195 Md. 251, 257 , 72 A. 2d 697 [(1950)]; Lissau v. Smith, 215 Md. 538, 547 , 138 A. 2d 381 [(1958)]. The reason for the rule is so universally known and recognized that it seems superfluous to state it. However, IY American Law of Property, § 17.11, states it succinctly and well; so, even at the risk of being tedious, we repeat the same: ‘* * * [C]ourts and legislatures early took the view that if the object [of the recording statutes] was to protect purchasers from secret and unknown conveyances, these parties did not need a statute to protect them from one of which they had knowledge or notice. Except, therefore, under the few acts of the pure-race type, a purchaser with notice cannot invoke protection.’ At this point, it may be noted that Section 16, supra, specifically provides that a deed recorded after the time prescribed by Section 10 shall be valid ‘against all purchasers with notice of such deed.’ This is another clear manifestation that the Legislature, in enacting the recording acts, did not intend to protect subsequent purchasers with actual knowledge of a p”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]t the time of settlement, no written contract had been entered into by [the parties to the sale], so that either side was at liberty not to consummate the sale.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mirjafari v. Cohn
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.