Smith v. Kimball’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““However strongly a pleader may be bound, and however' much he may be estopped by the averments of facts in the body of his pleadings, it is doubtful, whether he is bound or estopped by his prayer for relief. He is supposed to know the facts upon which he predicates his action, and to state them as he understands them, but the relief to which he' is entitled on the facts related is a' question for the court, and over which he has no control.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mohr v. Sands · Hardy v. LaDow

2. ““ * * * We give the word ‘title’ in the section its broadest meaning and most comprehensive signification. Judge Story’s definition is: ‘A purchase made of property actually in litigation, pendente lite, for a valuable consideration, and without any express or implied notice in point of fact, affects the purchaser in the same manner as if he had such notice; and he will accordingly be bound by the judgment or decree in the suit.’ (1 Eq. Jur., sec. 405.) Among the actions to which this doctrine will apply are suits for the foreclosure of unrecorded mortgages (Chapman v. West, 17 N. Y. 125 ; Center v. Bank, 22 Ala. 743; McCutchen v. Miller, 31 Miss. 65 ); to foreclose vendors’ liens; to set aside a decree of partition; to enforcq the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate; to enforce a charge against real property whatever be the form of the action (Seabrook v. Brady, 47 Ga. 65 .) Actions in the nature of creditors’ bills have been considered as giving notice to subsequent purchasers of the particular property involved in the controversy. (Jackson v. Stone, 13 Johns. 147 ; Bradley v. McDaniel, 3 Jones, 128 ; Fogerty v. Sparks, 22 Cal. 143; Bolin v. Connelly, 73 Pa. St. 336; Hill v. Oliphant, 41 id. 364; and see generally on this subject, Wade on the Law of Notice, sec. 342, and authorities cited.)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Holland v. Cofield