Young v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Howard L. Makofsky, Jr. v. Raymond C. Cunningham, II (1978), Bethurem v. Hammett (1987)
2 federal appellate · 53 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 Kay v. Carter · Werk v. Leland University · Marsh v. Lorimer · Jacobs v. Freyhan · Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. White
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A vendor must deliver title free of encumbrances and suggestion of future litigation and which is good and merchantable... Property has a merchantable title when it can be readily sold or mortgaged in the ordinary course of business by reasonable persons familiar with the facts and questions involved. Young v. Stevens, 209 So.2d 25 (La.1968)."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““The seller shall deliver to purchaser a merchantable title, and his inability to deliver such title within the time stipulated herein shall render this contract null and void, reserving unto purchaser the- right to demand the return of the deposit from the holder thereof, and reserving unto agent the right to recover commission.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““... the canon of construction which requires the court in construing either the law of the state, an ordinance of a city, or a contract between two people, which is a private law, to give effect to each and every word therein contained, if it is possible so to do, and never to strike out and refuse to consider words contained unless no reasonable construction could be given thereto, must apply in this case and forbids this court to read out of this contract the words ‘or as per title’; and, when the court finds itself unable to read these words out of the contract, to consider them not written, it is considered by the court to be a reasonable construction and interpretation of these words that the parties to the contract having seen the property themselves, the estate, as it is sometimes called, desired to be the owners of it and were willing to take it as viewed, according to the title, which would embrace the physical things that they saw. The house and the grounds, in the front and rear, and that, if the title of the owner called for a little more or a little less, the object which they desired to purchase would be acquired, and that is that estate consisting of this double cottage with its community driveway and the physical improvements put upon it which had become part of the immovables by destination.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.