Oransky v. Stepanavich’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1988
9 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 Gasner v. Pierce · Byrne v. Henry A. Hitner's Sons Co. · Commonwealth Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. Ellis · Lukens v. Wharton Avenue Baptist Church · Kennedy v. Baker
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is doubtless true that, if the purchase money is borrowed from a third party who has no other connection with the matter, he acquires no higher or greater right against a property purchased with the borrowed money than has any other creditor. It is otherwise however where, as here, there is ‘but one transaction,’ whether the loan was secured by a purchase-money mortgage, or by a judgment note. This is no longer an open question. Nottes’s App., 45 Pa. 361 , relied on by the court below, is not antagonistic. There we said, at page 362: ‘Liens for purchase money may be mortgage, judgment, or by ex-ecutory articles of bargain and sale; but they are always created in favor of vendors, and exist for their protection and benefit, or that of their assignees, or other legal representatives.’ True, in that case we held that Hoover, whose money had paid part of the purchase price, was not entitled to be protected for that reason alone, because (page 364) ‘there was no communication between the vendor and Hoover for a security for purchase money. ; . . Between the vendors and him no treaty whatever occurred.’ As pointing out the distinction between that situation and one like the present, we there referred to an unreported case of Stone v. Rattew, and said (page 364) that in it ‘The transaction was such as to relieve this point of all doubt. Shaffer was the vendor of Stone, and Stone was vendor of Rattew, and it is of no consequence that the deed was made directly from Shaffer to Rat”
2 later decisions 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.