Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 62 F.2d 701 - Haas v. Rendleman

Haas v. Rendleman’s Empirical Analysis

62 F.2d 701 · 1933

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
July 1986
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 1986

8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

60193319401950196019701980decided

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 Walker v. Brown · Hurley v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Ketchum v. St. Louis · Johnson v. Root Manufacturing Co. · Burrowes v. Nimocks

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

  1. ““It is elementar)? that questions as to the validity of a deed of trust on land, the necessity and requisites of registration, and the effect of the failure to record as against creditors, or a trustee in bankruptcy representing creditors, are to be determined by the laws of the state where the land embraced in the deed of trust is situate.” Haas v. Rendleman, 62 F. 2d 701 (4th Cir.), cert. den. 289 U. S. 750 (1933) Accord: Sapero v. Neiswender, 23 F. 2d 403, 404 (4th Cir. 1928); In re Noel supra.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “under the law of North Carolina it is essential to the conveyance of land that the deed of conveyance be under seal.”
    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.