In Re First Escrow, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2017
2 federal appellate · 9 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 2601 (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) · 12 U.S.C. § 2616
Relies on Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar · 129 Ohio St. 23 - Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken · 100 Wash. 2d 581 - Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance · Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Hulse Court rested its decision upon two grounds. First, that the transactions involved were “simple enough so that such a [standardized] form will suffice,” and second, that the broker had sufficient identity of interest with the seller he represented to safeguard the proper completion of the transaction. The situation presented here regarding escrow companies, however, does not fall within the Hulse exception. While the relatively simple nature of the task of filling in form documents remains unchanged, and while the completion of these documents may be “incidental” to the closing process, the escrow company does not have the requisite personal financial interest to safeguard the transaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Nonetheless, we are reluctant to automatically brand respondents’ activities as the unauthorized doing of law business. Hulse established our duty to strike a workable balance between the public’s protection and the public’s convenience. In short, we are willing to allow the Hulse test to be expanded to permit escrow companies to fill in the blanks of certain standardized form documents required to close real estate transactions only if they do so under the supervision of, and as agents for, a real estate broker, a mortgage lender, or a title insurer who has a direct financial interest in the transaction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Defendant escrow companies] complete pre-printed forms of documents, including but not limited to general warranty deeds, corporation warranty deeds, quit claim deeds, promissory notes, deeds of trust, affidavits of possession and title, HUD settlement statements and receipts, IRS Forms 1099, and property inspection certificates. [Defendants] discern the information needed to complete these forms from the written real estate contract and from communications with the parties and any attorneys, title insurers, or lenders involved in the transaction.”
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.