Dobyns v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis
1888
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 1945 · most notably Rice, Stix & Co. v. Sally (1903), Barton v. Sitlington (1895)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 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 Cameron, Hull & Co. v. Marvin · Petring v. Chrisler · Greeley v. Reading · 5 Mo. App. 545 - Nash v. Norment · Hewson v. Tootle
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Notwithstanding the agreement that the manufacturing company [the mortgagor] might sell the stock in trade in the usual course of business, the deed of trust was valid as between the parties thereto. No actual fraud was intended by the parties, and it would seem that, if the objectionable parol agreement was abrogated before the rights of creditors attached, the deed of trust ought to be held valid from that time on, even as to creditors. An entirely new pledge, freed from such agreement, would have been valid. The effect of taking possession under the deed of trust for the purposes therein specified, with the consent of the assignee, was to abrogate the previous, objectionable parol agreement.””
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.