Olivas v. Olivas’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2022
11 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 Ledbetter v. Webb · Newman v. Chase · Hertz v. Hertz · Michelson v. Michelson · Hamilton v. MacDonald
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applying the notion of constructive ouster in the marital context is simply another way of saying that when the emotions of a divorce make it impossible for spouses to continue to share the marital residence pending a property division, the spouse who-often through mutual agreement-therefore departs the residence may be1 entitled to rent from the remaining spouse. Common law precedents support the proposition that the remaining spouse should pay rent to the cotenant when both cannot be expected to live together on the property. For example, when it is impractical for all cotenants to occupy the premises jointly, it is unnecessary that those claiming rent from the cotenant in possession first demand the right to move in and occupy the premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Dorn“The prevailing doctrine, which we adopt, is that where one tenant in common uses and occupies the whole of the common property without excluding his cotenants and without any demand from them for possession, and refusal on his part, in the absence of any agreement to pay rent, he is not liable to his cotenants for the use and occupation of the common property, and since the possession of one joint tenant, or tenant in common, is the possession of all, and all are equally entitled to the use and enjoyment of the property, it follows as a general rule that one tenant cannot maintain an action at law against his cotenant in respect of the common property unless he has been disseized or ousted therefrom.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Dorn“the district court properly could have decided that [the] husband did not meet his burden ... and therefore could reject [the] husband's proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law on this matter.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gabriele v. Gabriele
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.