Munger v. Boardman’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer (1966), Waugh v. Lennard (1949)
53 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
Relies on Hall v. Weatherford · Button v. Wakelin · Insurance Co. of North America v. Williams
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It will not do for defendant Charles P. Munger to say he did not participate in the negotiations concerning the property. His wife was his or the community's agent in buying the property and in every step thereafter, and all her acts and admissions and representations and agreements were the acts, admissions, representations and agreements of the community. "Under the law, neither spouse may encumber, by mortgage or lease or otherwise, or sell or dispose of community realty without the consent of the other. It is necessary that they join in any such transaction affecting realty of the community. Defendant seems to be laboring under the belief that the agent of the community (Edna A. Munger), in seeking and securing from the owners of the mortgage an extension of time for foreclosing it, thereby encumbered the property. This is not so in fact or in law. She gave no mortgage. She placed no encumbrance upon the property. The mortgage was on the property when the community bought it, and all the community did was to ask for time in which to pay the obligation and it was granted to them upon the condition that they assume the payment of the note and mortgage. * * * * * * "* * * The husband may not claim the benefits of the contract and repudiate the burdens. * * *" 53 Ariz. at 277, 280 , 88 P.2d at 538 , 539”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * that the facts of each case must be looked to and applied by analogy rather than by rule in equitable estoppel." Munger v. Boardman, 53 Ariz. 271, 278 , 88 P.2d 536, 539 (1939).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * The husband may not claim the benefits of the contract and repudiate the burdens. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. King v. Uhlmann
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.