Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 Md. 182 - Hutson v. Hutson

Hutson v. Hutson’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
August 2002
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2002

6 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

7019351940195019601970198019902000decided

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 American Surety Co. v. Conner · Brewer v. Bowersox · Mitchell v. Frederick · Cahill v. Applegarth · Grossman v. Greenstein

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 24 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

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.