Fooshee v. Snavely’s Empirical Analysis
58 F.2d 774 · 1932
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2000
2 federal appellate ·
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 5 Ohio St. 124 - Hoffman, Burneston & Co. v. Mackall · Dowie v. Chicago, Waukegan & North Shore Railway Co. · Arundel Corp. v. Wathen · Lucas v. Clafflin & Co. · American Exch. Nat. Bank of Dallas v. Colonial Trust 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he intent of the amendment of 1926 [enacting the last sentence of § 17-59 quoted supra ] was to abolish admission to record by mere mental act, and to make the physical act of indorsing on the document the day and time of day of admission, the one and only act capable of evidencing admission to record. To hold that a deed may be admitted to record by mere mental act on the part of the clerk is simply to ignore and nullify the amendment of 1926.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Franklin“Had the deed been properly presented for recordation, it would have been the duty of the clerk at once to admit it to the record, and no act of the clerk would, in any way, have affected that fact.”
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.