Fishman v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Petitioners’ predecessors in the chain were not volunteers or intermeddlers because they expended money to retire the existing loan in order to protect their interests. [1st Chesapeake], believing (mistakenly) that Street held a valid deed to the Pasadena property, expended $59,086.72 to pay-off the existing loan placed by Urban. Midfirst, as assignee of the note underlying the Street deed of trust, acquired an interest in the Pasadena property and became a lien holder as to that property.... Although Petitioners had constructive notice of another’s claim on the land, constructive notice alone does not defeat the application of equitable subrogation. As we stated in [G.E. Capital v. Levenson, 338 Md. 227, 243 , 657 A.2d 1170 (1995) ], equitable subrogation applies in the “absence of actual knowledge on the part of the subrogation claimant concerning the intervening lien.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James B. Nutter & Co. v. Black

2. “[T]he Court of Appeals in Fishman concluded that the lenders in that case were not volunteers or intermeddlers simply “because they expended money to retire the existing loan in order to protect their interests.” That is exactly what [Nutter] did. Like any other mortgage lender, and just like the lender in Fishman , [Nutter] retired the existing loan in order to protect its interests as the intended first mortgage lien creditor. [Nutter] lacked actual knowledge of the fact that Ms. Black had been adjudged incompetent. In fact, one of the parties’ stipulated facts was that “[Nutter] and the title agent that handled the closing failed to properly identify the guardianship action in the Court record.” All of the cases make it clear that constructive knowledge on the part of a creditor does not bar it from equitable subrogation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. James B. Nutter & Co. v. Black

3. “clearly against the logic and effect of facts and inferences before the court[ ] ... or when the ruling is violative of fact and logic.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Monarch Acad. Balt. Campus, Inc. v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs