Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 488 F.2d 1285 - Ammerman v. Miller

Ammerman v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

488 F.2d 1285 · 1973

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
March 1995
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 1995

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

110197319801990decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 294

Relies on American Surety Co of New York v. Bethlehem Nat Bank of Bethlehem Pa · Davis v. Wells · United States v. Peck · D. W. Jaquays & Co. v. First Security Bank · Plitt v. Kaufman

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

  1. ““ ‘The general rule is that if a creditor receives a mortgage, deed of trust, assignment, or similar conveyance of property of the debtor as security for the debt, knows of the guarantor’s obligation, and the recording of such conveyance is necessary so as to make it valid against subsequent judgment creditors and purchasers, it is the duty of the creditor to see that the instrument in his hands is properly recorded, and if he fails to act, the guarantor will be discharged to the extent of the loss thereby occasioned. D. W. Jaquays & Co. v. First Security Bank, 101 Ariz. 301 , 419 P.2d 85 (1966); First Nat. Bank v. Kittle, 69 W.Va. 171 , 71 S.E. 109 (1911); Sullivan v. State, 59 Ark. 47 , 26 S.W. 194 (1894); 50 Am.Jur., Suretyship, § 118; Restatement of Security § 132, p. 358 (1941); A. Stearns, Suretyship § 99, p. 142 (4th ed. 1934); 1 G. Brandt, Suretyship and Guaranty, § 505 (3rd ed. 1905). Cf. Etelson v. Suburban Trust Company, 263 Md. 376 , 283 A.2d 408 (1971).’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.