Fairclaw v. Forrest’s Empirical Analysis
130 F.2d 829 · 1942
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Sawada v. Endo (1977), McDonald v. Senn (1949)
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 23 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 Tyler v. United States · Hiles v. . Fisher · Lang v. Commissioner · Phillips v. Krakower · Ades v. Caplin
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The interest in family solidarity retains some influence upon the institution [of tenancy by the entirety]. It is available only to husband and wife. It is a convenient mode of protecting a surviving spouse from inconvenient administration of the decedent’s estate and from the other’s improvident debts. It is in that protection the estate finds its peculiar and justifiable function.” 130 F.2d at 833 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sawada v. Endo · Guray v. Tacras“The limitations on alienation and encumbrances are imposed in order to protect the rights of the other spouse, not to create a bulwark before the alienating one against his own improvidence. When he acquires full power over the property by survivorship he may do as he pleases with it. His protection ends when the spouse dies and there is no longer need to hold off creditors in her behalf. The rule of inalienability therefore is not one founded in protection of the surviving spouse against his or her own creditors. It is one of protection against creditors of the first decedent spouse. Prior to the death of one it is always problematical which will survive. Each, technically seised of all, has an inchoate possibility of actually receiving all. The possibility is real and valuable, though uncertain. Mere possibilities are inalienable in the common-law system of estates. But this is peculiar in being coupled, in legal theory, with a presently vested estate. This fact, coupled with the idea that inalienability in general is for the protection of the other spouse, raises the question whether a devise made by one spouse while the estate continues is wholly void or inoperative or may have the effect of a valid devise, effective if the other spouse dies first. Concededly, neither a conveyance nor a devise by one could become effective if the other should survive. Nor could there be an attachment or levy against the former under judicial process. But beyond this there is no necessity ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Married Woman's Property Statutes have changed the common-law principles of marital unity so that the husband cannot now assert an exclusive right to the rents and profits * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kosmadakes
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.