Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 CAL 294 - Peers v. McLaughlin

Peers v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably 61 Cal. 2d 311 - Coast Bank v. Minderhout (1964), Estate of Pitts (1933)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions

601891190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Daggett v. Rankin · Love v. Sierra Nevada Lake Water & Mining Co. · Remington v. Higgins · Heath v. West

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

  1. ““Tbe doctrine seems to be well establisiied that an agreement in writing to give a mortgage, or a mortgage defectively executed, or an imperfect attempt to create a mortgage or to appropriate specific property to tbe discharge of a particular debt, will create a mortgage in equity, or a specific lien on tbe property so intended to be mortgaged. 1 Am. Lead. Cas. Eq. 510; In re Howe, 1 Paige, 125. The maxim of equity upon which this doctrine rests is that equity looks upon things agreed to he done as actually performed, the true meaning of which is that equity will treat the subject-matter, as to collateral consequences and incidents, in the same manner as if the final acts contemplated by the parties had been executed exactly as they ought to have been. Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 64, 790; Will. Eq. Jur. 298, 209.””
    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.