In Re Barnacle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 10 state decisions

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

1. ““need not be in any set form, but shall be made by all the parties executing the instrument * * * [to] express the ideas that the parties were each and all known to the magistrate taking the acknowl-edgement, and known by the magistrate to be the parties executing the instru ment, and that they acknowledge the instrument to be their free act and deed * * *G.L.1956 § 34-12-1. (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Duffy v. Dwyer · 8 F. Supp. 3d 74 - Lister v. Bank of America, N.A.

2. ““The rule that a recorded defective instrument does not afford constructive notice has long been questioned.” [In re Sandy Ridge Oil Co., 510 N.E.2d 667, 670 (Ind.1987) ]. If we were to adopt the majority view, a disturbing situation could arise. If there is a valid recording, a failure to search the record does not protect the prospective bona fide purchaser. However, following the majority view, if there is a defectively exe cuted instrument recorded in the proper chain of title, failure to search the record would result in protection whereas actual discovery of the instrument would result in a duty to inquire. Adopting the majority view would result in rewarding a failure to search the chain of title. We would thus be protecting a party that failed to protect itself, most probably resulting in an unfair and an unjust windfall. What legal maxim would be served in penalizing those who search while rewarding those who do not? We find none of any value. “The overriding consideration should be that the instrument would give the purchaser a ‘definite and tangible clue, which, if diligently followed up, would ordinarily bring the truth of the matter to light.’ ” C. Johnson, Purpose and Scope of Recording Statutes, 47 Iowa L.Rev. 231, 241 n. 57 (1962).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Taylor (In Re Taylor)

3. “One searching the records would literally have the key to the specific identity of the condominium unit at his or her fingertips and could unlock the resulting information simply by turning one page in the land evidence records. The mortgage that contained the general metes-and-bounds description of the entire condominium project was recorded on page 262. The assignment was recorded on page 262A. The association of the mortgage and the assignment can be further evidenced by the fact that they were recorded two minutes apart. We believe that a reasonable and diligent title search would have uncovered the assignment. The purchaser with notice of the mortgage and the assignment would then have the identity of the specific unit number because both the general metes-and-bounds description and the specific unit number appear in the assignment. Therefore, we hold that the purchaser would have constructive notice of the single condominium unit that the mortgage covered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Poteat