Young v. Barker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Odell v. Cox, 151 Cal. 70 [ 90 P. 194 ], there was an inadequacy of consideration, which alone is not a sufficient ground for vacating the execution sale; but, said the court, inadequacy of price is a circumstance to be considered in connection with other circumstances which together will be a ground for vacating the sale (pp. 73, 74). In the Odell case as in the instant ease the judgment debtor had no knowledge of the issuance of the execution or of the sale and although a writ of execution was levied in the manner authorized by law the method of its levy was such that the owner did not know and could not learn of the levy except from information given him by the opposing party or casually by someone who knew the facts. In view of the defendant’s financial circumstances and of the appeal from the judgment he had no reason to believe that his property would be sold. To the same effect are the cases of Winbigler v. Sherman, 175 Cal. 270 [ 165 P. 943 ], and Hyman v. Stern, 61 Cal.App. 656 [ 215 P. 911 ]. In Graffman v. Burgess, 117 U.S. 180, 192 [ 6 S.Ct. 686 , 29 L.Ed. 839, 843 ], it is said that if the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience (it is so in the instant case), or if, in addition to the gross inadequacy, the purchaser has been unfair or has taken undue advantage, or if the owner of the property has been misled or surprised, the sale will be regarded as fraudulent and void, or the party injured will be permitted to redeem the property from sale. 1 Gre”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 103 Cal. App. 2d 651 - Turner v. Milstein

2. ““. . . In Graffam v. Burgess, 117 U.S. 180, 192 , 6 S.Ct. 686, 692 , 29 L.Ed. 839, 843 , it is said that if the inadequacy is so gross as to shock the conscience (it is so in the instant case), or if, in addition to the gross inadequacy, the purchaser has been unfair or has taken undue advantage, or if the owner of the property has been misled or surprised, the sale will be regarded as fraudulent and void, or the party injured will be permitted to redeem the property from the sale. ‘Great inadequacy requires only slight circumstances of unfairness in the conduct of the party benefited by the sale to raise the presumption of fraud.’ ...””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jordan v. Hopkins (In re Jordan)

3. “"... As the facts in this case unfold there will appear a program, well prepared and almost successful, whereby plaintiff hoped to acquire a valuable property for a paltry sum by following the forms of law but in defiance of the elemental rules of equity and without a simulacrum of justice.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jordan v. Hopkins (In re Jordan)