Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 Mich. 458 - Pines v. Equitable Trust Co.

Pines v. Equitable Trust Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 1936
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Wagar v. Stone · Hazeltine v. Granger · Reichert v. Guaranty Trust Co.

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Under mortgages made prior to the enactment of Act No. 228, Pub. Acts of 1925 (3 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 13498, 13499), a mortgagee was not entitled to possession of the mortgaged premises, or to the rent, income, and profits therefrom, until after foreclosure and expiration of the equity of redemption, by reason of Act No. 62, Laws of 1843, (3 Comp. Laws of 1929, § 14956). Wagar v. Stone, 36 Mich. 364 ; Hazeltine v. Granger, 44 Mich. 503 . We have held that under a mortgage executed prior to the enactment of Act No. 228, Pub. Acts 1925 (3 Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 13498, 13499), it was competent for the mortgagor to give possession to the mortgagee, pursuant to a similar contract. Reichert v. Guaranty Trust Co., 261 Mich. 315 . Neither statute constitutes a restraint on alienation. We think the contract valid."”
    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.