Dakan v. Dakan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 federal appellate · 276 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 312 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * In this case there arises the necessity for an accounting between the estate of G. W. Dakan acquired during a prior marriage and the community and separate estate of his second marriage. The relation of the parties in such a case is held to be that of tenants in common, and the well-settled rules governing that relation will mainly apply. 23 Tex.Jur., sec. 159, pp. 190, 191. * * * ” “ * * * The cases recognizing the general right of reimbursement between estates will disclose that the right of the estate claiming and entitled to reimbursement is not a fixed right or title in the property sought to be charged, but is an equity. What is that equity, and how and when is it to be enforced? These are the questions presented here for decision. We admit that they are not free of difficulty. The decisions have correctly classified the right of the one making such advancement as an equity, and the final determination of the rights of the respective parties is to be determined upon equitable principles as to the amount of reimbursement, as well as the means of enforcing the same. * * * ””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lindsay v. Clayman · Klein v. Klein

2. ““The law does not permit the husband to devise either separate property or community property of the wife, without her consent; but if he attempts . to do so, and she accepts under the will, as devisee, rights she would not otherwise be entitled to, she is estopped from questioning the disposition of her property upon the doctrine of election. Smith v. Butler, 85 Tex. 126 , 19 S.W. 1083 ; Gilroy v. Richards, 26 Tex.Civ.App. 355 , 63 S.W. 664 ; Rogers v. Trevathan, 67 Tex. 406 , 3 S.W. 569 ; Chase [Chace] v. Gregg, 88 Tex. 552 , 32 S.W. 520 ; Lee v. McFarland, supra [ 19 Tex.Civ.App. 292 , 46 S.W. 281 ]; Speer’s Marital Rights, § 323, p. 399. “An election to take under a will may be shown by the person, put to an election thereunder, accepting the property given to him or her by the will. 39 C. J., § 2396, p. 1120, and authorities cited. In the case of Dunn v. Vinyard, Tex. Com.App., 251 S.W. 1043, 1046 , which involved the doctrine of election under a will, Judge German in the course of the opinion said: ‘An election means that a legatee or devisee under a will is put to the choice of accepting the beneficial interest offered by the donor in. lieu of some estate which he .is entitled to, but which is being taken from him by the terms of the will. When by the express terms of the will the party is put to an election, he must make a choice regardless of the relative value of the two inconsistent rights. To uphold an election the compensating thing need not be of value equal to ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cunningham v. Townsend · Ing v. Cannon

3. “... Hence results the rule that the community estate must be reimbursed for the cost of the buildings erected by joint labors or funds upon the separate property of one of the spouses.... Furrh v. Winston, 66 Tex. 521, 524 , 1 S.W. 527, 529 (1886) (emphasis added),”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anderson v. Gilliland · Anderson v. Gilliland