Cassia v. Cassia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘While it is certainly clear that should [the surviving spouse] succeed in her claim to the elective share that she would be entitled to ‘one-third of the net estate of the decedent,’ it is certainly apparent that such would be monetary reimbursement only and not necessarily a devise of a specific portion of the property, real or personal, of the estate .... “ ‘If a complaint asserts in essence only a money claim, the plaintiff forfeits his right to use the notice of pendency.’ Long Island City Savings & Loan Association v. Gottlieb, 90 App.Div.2d 766, 455 N.Y.S.2d 300 (Second Dept.1982); accord Gokey v. Massey, 278 App.Div. 630 , 102 N.Y.S.2d 581 (Fourth Dept. 1951). This is so because the purpose of the lis pendens ‘is to put all potential buyers on notice that the ownership of the [real] property is the subject of a pending law suit.’ (Cf. Hercules Chemical v. VCI, Inc., 118 Misc.2d 814, 817 , 462 N.Y.S.2d 129 [(NY.Sup.Ct.1983)]). Land is unique while money is not. While [the surviving spouse] may certainly have a claim as to a portion of the assets to be derived from any sale of real property, she does not have, in the opinion of this Court, any claim as would ‘affect the title to, or the possession, use or enjoyment of [such] real property’ sought to be conveyed. (CPLR § 6501).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 37 So. 3d 776 - Stephens v. Huie