Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 WASH 191 - Bernard v. Benson

Bernard v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

1910

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
February 2008
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2008

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

601910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. · Owens v. McNally · Curran v. Holyoke Water Power Co. · Carlisle v. Carlisle · Howard v. Shaw

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. ““What makes inquiry a duty is such a visible state of things as is inconsistent with a perfect right in him who proposes to sell. Benson was the owner of the record title, and there was no such possession as would impart notice or make it the duty of the purchaser to inquire.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “" The custom has been uniform throughout the state to record all instruments affecting the title to real estate in Deed Records, those creating an incumbrance against real estate in Mortgage Records, and those evidencing title to personal property in Miscellaneous Records. This custom has been so general and has existed for so long a period of time that it is our duty, not only to judicially notice it, but to apply it as well.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““No one is bound to assume that the party with whom he deals is a wrongdoer, and if he presents property, the title to which is apparently valid, and there are no circumstances disclosed which cast suspicion upon the title, he may rightfully deal with him, and, paying full value for the same, acquire the rights of a purchaser in good faith,””
    1 later decision 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.