Morris v. Lindauer’s Empirical Analysis
54 F. 23 · 1893
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 1930
3 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Scarborough v. Pargoud · Ball v. Tompkins · National Rubber Co. v. Boston Rubber-Shoe Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It Is necessary, In order to invalidate the mortgage on this ground, that, the mortgagee should have had notice of the mortgagor’s intention; and, for the purpose of testing the question whether such notice was had, 1 think ihat, under the circumstances of the case, the inquiry must he directed to ihe beneficiaries of the mortgage, and not to the nominal party, who was a trustee. While I should not have much difficulty in regard to the oíIkt parties who were active in procuring the mortgage, it does not appear to iiae sufficiently proven that the bank, which was one of the parties secured thereby, liad notice that any assignment was expected to follow, ami it being innocent of any fraud, I think it [the mortgage] is valid in so far as the indebtedness of the bank is concerned.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tefft v. Stern
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.