Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 ALAAPP 507 - Clark v. Johnson & Lattimer

Clark v. Johnson & Lattimer’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
June 1941
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1941

12 state decisions

401913192019301940decided

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 Hussey v. Peebles · Powell v. Thompson · Meech v. . Allen · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Hill · Baldridge v. Eason

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

  1. ““Mere proof of facts sufficient to show only a conversion, if the action were one of trover by the owner, without more, will not sustain this action; for the interest of the plaintiff in the property is only a lien, which is neither a jus in re nor a jus ad rem, and, unlike the legal title, carries with it neither the possession nor the right to possession, but only the right to have the property levied on and sold under execution for the satisfaction of Ms judgment. No intermeddling with the property, therefore, is or can be injurious to the plaintiff’s rights,' which stops short of a destruction or impairment of his lien; for until then there is nothing in the way of its enforcement, which is the plaintiff’s only right. The case is essentially different from that of a suit in trover by the owner. In such a ease, proof only of a mere conversion of the property is, of course, sufficient; for mere conversion in such ease results in injury to the plaintiff, interfering, as it does, with his rights to the possession, dominion, and control of the property, the incidents of ownersMp.””
    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.