Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 U.S. 221 - Gelfert v. National City Bank

Gelfert v. National City Bank’s Empirical Analysis

313 U.S. 221 · 1941

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
9
cited 9 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 9 district · 75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably United States Trust Company of New York v. New Jersey (1977), BFP v. Resolution Trust Corporation (1994)

17 federal appellate · 9 district · 75 state decisions — followed in 16 states

580194119501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell · Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance · Graffam v. Burgess · Bronson v. Kinzie · Barnitz v. Beverly

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

  1. “Mortgagees are constitutionally entitled to no more than payment in full. [Foot note omitted]. They cannot be heard to complain on constitutional grounds if the legislature takes steps to see to it that they get no more than that.... But there is no constitutional reason why in lieu of the more restricted control by a court of equity the legislature cannot substitute a uniform comprehensive rule designed to reduce or to avoid in the run of cases the chance that the mortgagee will be paid more than once. [Citation omitted]. Certainly under this statute it cannot be said that more than that was attempted. [[Image here]] The fact that men will differ in opinion as to the adequacy of any particular yardstick of value emphasizes that the appropriateness of any one formula is peculiarly a matter for legislative determination.... To hold that mortgagees are entitled under the contract clause to retain the advantages of a forced sale would be to dignify into a constitutionally protected property right their chance to get more than the amount of their contracts. [Citation omitted], The contract clause does not protect such a strategical, procedural advantage.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[F]or about two centuries there has been a rather continuous effort ... to prevent the machinery of judicial sales from becoming an instrument of oppression. And so far as mortgage foreclosures are concerned numerous devices have been employed to safe-guard mortgagors from sales which will or may result in mortgagees collecting more than their due.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[C]annot fairly be said to do more than restrict the mortgagee to that for which he contracted, namely, payment in full.” Here . . . the obligation of the mortgagee’s contract is recognized; the statute does no more than limit “that right so as to prevent his obtaining more than his due.” (cites omitted) Id. at pp. 234, 235, 61 S.Ct. at p. 903 .”
    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.