Mitchell v. Frederick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 1 district · 56 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is evident from the facts in this case that the appellee intended to give to the appellant an- estate by the entireties in the property described in the deeds to which reference has been made. But it is also evident that the gift was predicated upon the theory that he was, at the' time of the. execution of the deeds, legally married to thé appellant and could create the peculiar form of tenancy which he sought to create. ******* “ ‘The most important incident of tenancy by the entireties is that the survivor of the marriage, whether the husband or the wife, is entitled to the whole, which right cannot be defeated by conveyance by the other to a stranger, as in the case of a joint tenancy, nor by sale under execution against the other.’ 1 Tiffany, Real Property, 645. ****** “As stated by the chancellor in his opinion filed in this case : ‘There is nothing in the record of this case which would support a conclusion that the plaintiff did not intend to enjoy the immunities which ordinarily accompanied the tenancy which he thought he was creating, and it would be highly inequitable to allow a conveyance to stand which would inevitably lead to a result which never was in his contemplation, * * * The case differs from those cases in which both parties knowing they are not married yet hold themselves out as husband and wife, and take title to property as tenants by the entireties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schwarz v. United States

2. “Classification does not, however, solve the problem in this case, for it is no part of the purpose of the law to restrict a grant to a pattern: that is, to confine it within the ordinary limits of one of the three classifications of cotenancy without regard to what the parties may desire and intend. The immunities of a tenancy by the entireties can be enjoyed only by a lawfully married pair; but any other incidents may be included in any other plural ownership if the parties so intend. It has already been seen that a tenancy in common may have attached to it the right of survivorship which is ordinarily a characteristic of a joint tenancy. In this very case it is conceded that whatever the tenancy which has resulted from the attempt to convey by the entireties, the expression of the purpose to attach the right of survivorship in three instances is effectual. Michael v. Lucas, supra. The lawful intention of the parties, in short, is to be carried out, and they are not to be deprived of freedom to convey whatever they wish, in order to conform to one of the more usual forms and classifications of ownership. [Id. at 48-49.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McManus v. Summers

3. “Even a tenancy in common may have a right of survivorship attached to it if the grantor expresses an intention that it shall be so.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 409 So. 2d 731 - Durant v. Hamrick