Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 9 KAN 61 - Johnson v. Hovey

Johnson v. Hovey’s Empirical Analysis

1872

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
2
states following
May 1899
most recently cited

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The lots were in the same block, but they were not numbered consecutively. They were numbered 7 and 9 respectively, which would’ seem to indicate that they were not adjacent to each other, but there was, at least, one other lot intervening between them. According to the authorities a sale thus made, though not void, is nevertheless irregular and voidable, and may be set aside on motion of' the judgment debtor, or other person aggrieved thereby. . . In this case the motion to set aside the sale was made by the judgment debtor, and the question may be asked, How would the court below know that he was aggrieved or'injured without any special proof of the same? We think that it must be presumed from the sale itself, without such special proof, that injury resulted to the judgment debtor. It can hardly be supposed that lots separated from each other could be sold so advantageously to the judgment creditor if sold in gross as if sold separately. Many persons might want to bid on one lot that would not want to bid on the other, or on both. The lots should be so offered for sale as would invite the fullest and freest competition. Offering lots adjoining each other for sale in gross might in some cases accomplish this ; but, offering lots separated from each other for sale in gross could hardly do so under any circumstances.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.