Hoffeditz v. Bosserman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““We have said many times that, ‘A court should never undertake to declare title to real estate good and marketable unless all the parties in interest are present on the record’ (see Schuldt v. Reading Trust Co., 270 Pa. 363, 366 ; Hebron v. Magda, 280 Pa. 508, 510-11 ; Smith v. Bloomington Coal Co., 282 Pa. 248 ); this means all parties with a substantial interest in the controversy before the court, in the sense that, in order to determine the cause, their rights must be passed upon. In a case like the present all persons ought to be made parties who, on the face of the will, have such a color or possibility of interest that the title to the property in controversy would not be marketable (in the sense of acceptable to ordinarily prudent purchasers) without their legal status first being judicially determined. We said in Hartley v. Langkamp et al., 243 Pa. 550, 555 , that all parties ‘must be joined who otherwise, not being bound by the decree, might assert a demand against the principal defendant which would be inequitable after the latter’s performance of a decree in favor of plaintiff’; and in Springfield Real Estate Co. v. Kellett, 281 Pa. 398, 400-1 , that ‘If the question for adjudication depends on a gift by will or otherwise and the point to be decided is which of two or more donees are entitled to the fee, consideration of the case should be postponed until all parties possibly interested are given an opportunity to be heard.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Longenbach v. Halterman