Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Standard Fire Insurance v. Berrett (2006), DeShields v. Broadwater (1995)
3 federal appellate · 24 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 Glidden Company v. Zdanok Et Al. · Caltrider v. Caples · Dyson v. Simmons · Himmighoefer v. Medallion Industries, Inc. · Kingsley v. Makay
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“One result of the doctrine is that a judgment entered against the vendor after the contract has been made does not become a lien on the realty. A vendor’s judgment creditor may not execute on the realty because the vendor, sometimes described as trustee for the purchaser, has a right to the balance of the purchase money but has no beneficial interest in the property. Equitable title is superi- or to a later judgment lien.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every recorded deed or other instrument takes effect from its effective date as against the grantee of any deed executed and delivered subsequent to the effective date, unless the grantee of the subsequent deed has: (1) Accepted delivery of the deed or other instrument: (1) In good faith; (ii) Without constructive notice under § 3-202; and (iii) For a good and valuable consideration; and (2) Recorded the deed first.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of equitable conversion by contract rests on the maxim that equity considers as done that which ought to be done. Hence, an equitable conversion will place equitable title in the purchaser only if the contract is one under which the vendor would be subject to a decree for specific performance. As explained by Chief Judge Jeremiah Townley Chase for the Court in Hampson v. Edelen, [ 2 H. & J. 64, 66 (1807) ], [a] contract for land, bona fide made for a valuable consideration, vests the equitable interest in the vendee from the time of the execution of the contract, although the money is not paid at that time. When the money is paid according to the terms of the contract, the vendee is entitled to a conveyance, and to a decree in Chancery for a specific execution of the contract, if such conveyance is refused. [ ] The commentators are in accord that equitable conversion by contract takes place only if the contract is specifically enforceable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.