Hogg v. Link’s Empirical Analysis
1883
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently September 1999 · most notably Nicholson v. Nicholson (1888), Ross v. Banta (1893)
31 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 Webster v. Reid · Douglass v. Howland · Mandeville v. . Reynolds · Dobson v. . Pearce · Candee v. . Lord
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Fraud in the procurement of the judgment is an extrinsic and collateral fact, and constitutes ground for a direct attack upon the judgment by a party thereto, by an application corresponding to an original bill in equity. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Ruffner was not a party to [Link’s] suit. [Link] did not and could not complain of the judgment on Ruffner’s behalf, but he sought to protect his own interest in the land against [Hogg’s] claim of title through the sale and conveyance of the land to him, under his judgment. At the time of its rendition, the judgment did not affect any of the rights of [Link.] Afterward [Ruffner] conveyed the land to [Link] by warranty deed in fee simple. Could [Link] ask a court to interfere in his behalf, as against the conveyance to [Hogg], under his judgment? [Link] received his conveyance, with constructive notice of [Hogg’s] judgment lien, and it does not appear from the finding whether or not he had actual notice, if that could affect the matter. It does not appear that there was any collusion in the procurement of the judgment for the purpose of defrauding [Link]. The burden was upon [Link] to impeach [Hogg’s] title. He does not, upon the facts stated, appear to have any right to attack that title.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hiles v. Null““If a judgment was fraudulent by collusion between the parties to it, on purpose to defraud a subsequent purchaser, the case would present a very different question. But if the judgment was fraudulent only as between the parties, it is for the injured party alone to apply the remedy.’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Abington v. Townsend
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.