Arnold v. Barner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 4 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““However, it is specifically alleged that the abstract as originally prepared was reissued and recertified by the abstracter as a correct and complete abstract under an agreement with O’Meara, the grantor of appellants, who delivered it to appellants, and that they, relying on its correctness, purchased the land and suffered loss through the negligent errors and omissions of the abstracter that have been mentioned. If the abstract was then reissued and recertified as a whole, as alleged, the abstracter is liable to the extent that he would have been if a new and complete document had been made at the time of reissue. ... If, however, he undertakes to examine the entire records and to reissue the abstract which he had previously prepared, and he then represents and certifies that it is a complete epitome of all the facts affecting the title from the beginning to the time of reissue the abstracter would be liable, not only for omissions and errors in the extension of the abstract but for those in the original abstract. (Bremerton Development Co. v. Title Trust Co., 67 Wash. 268 , 121 Pac. 69 .) . . . The petition alleges that the abstract was reissued and recertified on June 24, 1909, and the action was brought in less than three years after that time.” (pp. 772, 773.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arnold v. Barner

2. ““Ordinarily an abstracter who is employed to bring up to date an abstract previously made, is only expected and required to examine and certify as to matters which have been brought on the records during the intervening period, and in such event his liability would be limited to such errors as were made in the extension of the abstract.” (Arnold & Co. v. Barner, 91 Kan. 768, 772 , 139 Pac. 404 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arnold v. Barner

3. ““Posted and recertified'the same abstract down to April 22, 1909, and that on June 24, 1909, Barner was employed by one O’Meara to continue and recertify the abstract down to and including the 24th day of June, 1909, and that the abstract made and so recertified by him was incorrect and incomplete.” (Arnold & Co. v. Barner, 91 Kan. 768, 770 , 139 Pac. 404 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Arnold v. Barner