Chateau Lafayette Apartments, Inc. v. Meadow Brook National Bank’s Empirical Analysis
416 F.2d 301 · 1969
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2007 · most notably Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations v. City of New York (2007), Trust Company Bank v. United States Gypsum Company (1992)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 94 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1962 · 28 U.S.C. § 2001
Relies on Mercantile National Bank at Dallas v. C H Langdeau Republic National Bank of Dallas · Michigan National Bank v. Robertson · Casey v. Adams · 45 Cal. App. 2d 246 - Vaughan v. Roberts · Bruns, Nordeman & Co. v. American National Bank & Trust Co.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Article 80 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure establishes mandatory venue for ‘an action to assert an interest in immovable property, or a right in, to, or against immovable property.’ Such an action ‘shall be brought in the parish where the immovable property is situated.’ While we are able to find no Louisiana decisions directly in point, we have little doubt that the action here, which by virtue of the amended complaint, seeks in major part to have a mortgage on immovable property in part ‘cancelled and erased from the public records of Lafayette Parish,’ and seeks to have ‘the mortgage * * * ordered reformed,’ is an action ‘to assert an interest in immovable property, or a right in, to, or against immovable property’; hence, the action could be brought in but one Parish, and, in this diversity case, that would be the Lafayette Division of the District Court. “Moreover, the effect of the remedy sought in Casey and the one claimed here virtually were the same. In Casey , complete cancellation and erasure of secured mortgages on immovable property was sought; here, although the action arose under circumstances not exactly the same as those in Casey , total or partial cancellation, reformation, and erasure of a mortgage on immovable local property is sought.” (Footnote Omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Local actions are in the nature of suits in vem, and are to be prosecuted where the thing on which they are founded is situated.”
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.