Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 44 MO 560 - Aubuchon v. Bender

Aubuchon v. Bender’s Empirical Analysis

1869

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
5
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Swift Company v. Hocking Valley Railway Company (1917), 129 Cal. App. 2d 810 - Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co. (1954)

27 state decisions

701869187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. ““At common law there was no obligation to put upon record a conveyance affecting the title of land, liut the duty of registration is now imposed upon tlie grantee, or the person to whom or for whose use the conveyance or covenant is made; and, as in all other eases where a duty is imposed, he who neglects it should suffer the consequences. The object of the requirement is to compel an exhibit of titles to facilitate transfers, but principally to guard purchasers agaiust imposition; and hence, if the prior deed is not recorded, a subsequent buyer for good consideration without notice will be protected. 'Phis protection, always thrown around an innocent purchaser, and to which our statute also expressly entities him, is founded on the broadest equity, lie receives it not because the prior deed is invalid in itself, — the duty of recording is not enforced by any such penalty, — but because justice will not suffer a person who omits a plain duty to set up a claim against one who has been led by that omission to invest his money in what he supposed his vendor had a right to sell.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No agreed statement of facts can fix a conclusion of law. The relationship and death are facts to be admitted, but who were his heirs is a question of law which the court is bound to declare.”
    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.