mortgage clause (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

mortgage clause in Colorado

5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1902–1985 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Hartford Fire Insurance v. Olcott neutral
ill · 1881
2 sentences

1902Co. v. Olcott, 97 Ill. 439 , P. gave his note and to secure same trust deed on real estate.

1902Co. v. Olcott, 97 Ill. 439 , P. gave his note and to secure same trust deed on real estate.

21902–1902
Swihart v. Mo. Farmers Mut. T., C. W. Ins. Co. green
moctapp · 1940
2 sentences

1985Swihart v. Missouri Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 234 Mo.App. 998 , 138 S.W.2d 9 (1940); G.

1985Swihart v. Missouri Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 234 Mo.App. 998 , 138 S.W.2d 9 (1940); G.

11985–1985
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Western Fire Insurance Co. green
moctapp · 1970
1 sentence

1985GM Acceptance Corp. v. Western Fire Insurance Co., 457 S.W.2d 234 (Mo.App.1970), citing 5 A. Appelman, Insurance Law & Practice § 3401, lc. 292 (1970).

11985–1985
Bruner v. Martin green
kan · 1907
1 sentence

1924Bruner v. Martin, supra, is against our conclusion here, but though it discusses the meaning of the word “arose” in a most illuminating way, it takes the question of the bar of the mortgage by the bar of action on the note as a matter of course without discussion. ■ To hold that foreclosure would not lie here would be to turn over-the regulation of a right of action in our courts, which alone have jurisdiction of it, to the legislature of another state whose courts have no jurisdiction of it.

11924–1924
Traders' Insurance v. Race neutral
· 1892
1 sentence

1908In Traders’ Insurance Company et al. v. Race, supra, the court had under consideration a mortgage clause similar to the one before us.

11908–1908

Where else courts name it

LA 54 (1905–2023) NY 39 (1830–2024) KS 25 (1897–2012) CT 25 (1917–2020) FL 22 (1929–2024) IL 21 (1881–2022) CA 20 (1865–2024) PA 18 (1920–2002) MI 18 (1937–2022) MN 17 (1981–2017) AL 16 (1885–2012) MO 15 (1902–2007) OK 15 (1914–2017) AR 13 (1919–2016) IA 12 (1886–1940) GA 12 (1878–2024) IN 12 (1878–2017) TN 10 (1932–2009) OR 10 (1892–1985) MD 9 (1875–2023) OH 9 (1896–2025) WA 8 (1919–2025) KY 8 (1930–2003) TX 8 (1877–2016) WV 7 (1928–1997) NC 7 (1880–1998) MA 7 (1926–2020) MS 7 (1933–1994) NJ 6 (1930–2005) RI 6 (1895–2025) NE 6 (1897–1964) CO 5 (1902–1985) ME 5 (1914–2024) SD 5 (1913–1982) NM 4 (1925–1963) SC 4 (1926–2013) MT 4 (1929–1959) ND 3 (1933–2008) AZ 3 (1931–2023) WI 3 (1979–2013) WY 2 (1923–1934) HI 2 (1998–2002) DE 2 (1825–1976)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check