Groves v. Witherspoon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 3 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““With respect to Cumberland Capital Corporation, who asserts that it is a bona fide purchaser of the property, we hold that it could obtain no better title than was passed to its mortgagor. “If the title executed pursuant to the Chancery action was merely voidable, or contained some other latent defect which was outside this defendant’s chain of title of which it had no actual or constructive notice, then Cumberland Capital’s argument could rest on a sound foundation. See e. g. Strong v. Efficiency Apartment Corporation, 159 Tenn. 337 [ 17 S.W.2d 1 ] (1929). “Here, however, the title purportedly passed by the Chancery Court to Marshall, then to David and finally to this defendant was rendered void by David’s fraud and not merely voidable. If the instrument purporting to convey title is absolutely void then it is void as to any of those claiming under it. See Swan v. Castleman, 63 Tenn. 257 (1874). It is for this reason that Cumberland Capital cannot prevail in its defense. See also Cannon Mills, Inc. v. Spivey, 208 Tenn. 419 [ 346 S.W.2d 266 ] (1961); Obion Valley Land Investment Co. v. Southern General Life Co., 174 Tenn. 353 [ 125 S.W.2d 482 ] (1939); Middle Tennessee Bank v. McKennon, 20 Tenn.App. 416 [ 99 S.W.2d 564 ] (1936).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Groves v. Witherspoon