Bates v. Cohn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 27 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f a borrower was able to raise any sort of exception after the foreclosure sale, there undoubtedly would be a chilling effect on interested prospective purchasers coming to sales. Prospective third-party purchasers would be unable—based on practical notions of what constitutes due diligence—to gauge against such claims the risk of an intended investment. Being a bona fide purchaser for value would not mean as much or even offer the traditional safe harbor underlying that status.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 Md. App. 258 - Devan v. Bomar · 217 Md. App. 455 - Johnson v. Nadel

2. “[A]n allegation of fraud, with respect to the procedure of the sale, may be asserted properly in a post-sale exception. Whether an allegation of fraud regarding the underlying mortgage or deed of trust likewise may be raised post-sale, however, is a related, but distinct question.... [W]e have not yet addressed such a question under the more restrictive version of Rule 14-305.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Nadel · 225 Md. App. 258 - Devan v. Bomar

3. ““The Committee note raised the issue of loss mitigation three times. It did so by stating that the failure to grant loss mitigation ‘may be a defense to the right of the [lender] to foreclose in the pending action.’ 2010 Committee Note to Rule 14—211(a)(3)(B) (emphasis added). A reasonable construction of this language (and its placement within Rule 14-211) indicates that a lender’s failure to comply with loss mitigation requirements goes to its right to foreclose, rather than its procedural handling of the sale. As a result, a homeoumer, who wishes to use the lender’s failure as the basis of his or her claim, must do so through Rule lb-211’s pre-sale injunctive relief apparatus.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 225 Md. App. 258 - Devan v. Bomar