149 Pa. Super. 9 - Wakefield v. Wakefield’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Willcox v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance (1947), Maxwell v. Saylor (1948)
20 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 Madden v. Glosztonyi Savings & Trust Co. · Beihl v. Martin · O'Malley v. O'Malley · Gasner v. Pierce · Bramberry's Estate
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * The legal unity of husband and wife still remains, and the husband has the entire use and the wife has the entire use, for there are no moieties between husband and wife, where the real estate has been conveyed to and held by them as tenants by entireties. McCurdy et al. v. Canning, supra, 64 Pa. pages 40, 41; Hoover v. Potter, 42 Pa. Super. 21 . While the marriage subsists it makes no difference which of the parties leases the property and obtains the rents; the leasing by either is for the benefit of them in that relation. O’Malley v. O’Malley, supra, 272 Pa. page 533, 116 A. 500 ; Madden et al. v. Gosztonyi S. & T. Co., 331 Pa. 476, 488 , 200 A. 624 , 117 A.L.R. 904 . Consequently, it be ing admitted that plaintiff and defendant are still wife and husband, under the circumstances set forth in the bill neither could require an accounting by the other of the rents from the real estate owned by them as tenants by entireties. See Meyer’s Estate (No. 2), 232 Pa. 95, 96 , 81 A. 147 ; O’Malley v. O’Malley, supra, 272 Pa. pages 535, 536, 116 A. 500 .” Wakefield v. Wakefield, 25 A. 2d 841, 843 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1942) app. den. 26 May 1942. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Colburn v. Colburn
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.