Kremer v. Schutz’s Empirical Analysis
1910
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2006
15 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 Wilkinson v. Elliott · Willard v. Ostrander · Kremer v. Kremer · Dunnington v. Elston · Farmers Bank v. First National Bank
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.
““While the judgment of the district court awarding the land to John L. Kremer was what is termed a final judgment, it was subject to appeal, and an appeal was in fact taken from the judgment before .the lease was executed. In contracting for the use of the land on the basis of that judgment Schütz was bound to know that it was subject to- appeal and that an appeal had been taken. The litigation had not ended in the rendition of the judgment, and although it may have seemed to Schütz that Mr. Kremer might ultimately win, he still took the risk of a reversal and of the final outcome of the litigation. . . . “It is argued that as no supersedeas bond was given there was no Us pendens after judgment. The supersedeas bond and resulting stay only operates on the enforcement of a judgment by execution. . . . “Schütz was not in the attitude of one purchasing at a judicial sale. Such a purchaser may, under the proviáons of section 467 of the civil code, . . . acquire a good title notwithstanding a subsequent reversal of the judgment under which the sale was made. . . . These provisions, however, afford no-protection to one who purchases or leases from a party to the litigation. . . . The tenant accepted a lease from, and paid his money to, Mr. Kremer with his eyes open, knowing that the ownership of the farm was still in litigation and that whether he acquired any rights under his lease from Mr. Kremer depended upon the result of the appeal which had been taken when the lease was made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pachner v. Hoppas
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.