Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 ARK 460 - Sparks v. Robinson

Sparks v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

1899

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2019

20 state decisions

801899190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ellenbogen v. Griffey · Stryker v. Hershy · Edmondson v. Carnall

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. “"The court was clearly justified in concluding that the instrument purporting to be a bill of sale, although absolute on its face, was intended by the parties as nothing more than a security for the money advanced. The right of redemption was reserved to the grantor in the face of the instrument, and the. extraneous proof warranted the conclusion that the instrument was intended as a mortgage. Stryker v. Hershy, 38 Ark. 264 . In case of a mortgage the mortgagee becomes the absolute owner, where there is a failure to pay, and no redemption “The instrument itself, and the sale ticket given with it, show that the -grantor had the privilege of redeeming in 30 days by paying the principal and not exceeding ten per cent., and the proof shows that at the end of each month the 80 cents, or ten per cent, per month, was collected, and another sale ticket was issued granting the same privilege. And this might be continued ad infinitum. The law shells the covering, and extracts the kernel. Names amount to nothing when they fail to designate the (facts.' We are of the opinion that the court was justified in concluding that the papers called ‘bill of sale’ and ‘sale tickets’ were nothing more or less than a shift for a usurious loan of money.””
    3 later decisions 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.