Renner v. Crisman’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 district · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Northwest Realty Company v. Colling (1966), Bottum v. Herr (1968)
2 district · 70 state decisions
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 Englestien v. Mintz · 55 Cal. App. 117 - McKevitt v. City of Sacramento · Miller v. Dyer · Rogers v. Penobscot Mining Co. · Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The relationship between an installment vendor and his vendee is essentially that of secured creditor and debtor. The vendee for all practical purposes is the owner of the property, generally with the right of possession and use, and the vendor's sole remaining interest is to be paid the agreed consideration in the form and manner provided by the instrument used to secure payment thereof. The security device employed may curtail or broaden the scope of remedies available in case of default of payment, but the final interest of the seller is nothing other than the right to payment of whatever sums are still owed him on the sale of the property. The vendee's interest has been termed an equitable interest (citing Phillis v. Gross, supra,) or an equitable title. (Citing Minnesota and California opinions.)"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The words `subject to' are frequently used in conveyances and are generally considered terms of qualification... . In their ordinary sense, they mean `subordinate to', `subservient to', `limited by,' or `charged with'. There is nothing in their use which connotes a reservation or retention of property rights." Id. 127 N.W.2d at 721 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the incumbrance can be removed merely by the application of the purchase money, and the court can provide for a conveyance of clear title to the vendee, the mere fact that an incumbrance exists which the plaintiff has not removed, or even is unable to remove without the application of the purchase money, will not prevent a decree for specific performance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rusch v. Kauker
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.