Doing v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We would have no difficulty in sustaining an estate by the entireties in personal property if it had been evidenced by a bill of sale to the husband and wife, as such, and where there was evidenced the requisite intent to create such an estate, but we are not convinced that the mere purchase of personal property out of a joint bank account of the husband and wife, and from the contributions from each out of their separate funds, plus the facts that the furniture was billed to Adobar [a joint account] and that some of the invoices were made out to Mr. and Mrs. Riley, were sufficient, in the absence of any showing of any specific intent, to set up an estate by the entireties in such furniture. It is true that the title to personal property may pass by delivery, but there must also be an intent to create an estate by the entireties, and such intent ought to be made clearly to appear since upon the decease of one spouse the survivor would become the sole and complete owner of the property to the exclusion of the children and creditors.” (at p. 454. Emphasis supplied.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co. · In Re Spatola

2. “a consideration of the nature and terms of the transaction”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. First National Bank of Leesburg v. Hector Supply Co. · 90 So. 2d 39 - In Re Lyons'estate

3. “(1) Every person who has the legal title or beneficial title in equity to real property in this state and who resides thereon and in good faith makes the same his permanent residence, or the permanent residence of another or others legally or naturally dependent upon such person, is entitled to an exemption from all taxation, except for assessments for special benefits, up to the assessed valuation of $5,000 on the residence and contiguous real property, as defined in § 6 Art. YII of the State Constitution. Such title may be held by the entireties, jointly, or in common with others, and the exemption may be apportioned among such of the owners as shall reside thereon, as their respective interests shall appear; but no such exemption of more than $5,000 shall be allowed to any one person or on any one dwelling house, except that an exemption up to the assessed valuation of $5,000 may be allowed on each apartment occupied by a tenant-stockholder or member of a cooperative apartment corporation and on each condominium parcel occupied by its owner; nor shall the amount of the exemption allowed any person exceed the proportionate assessed valuation based on the interest owned by such person. (2) As used in subsection (1), the term “cooperative apartment corporation” means a corporation, whether for profit or not for profit, organized for the purpose of owning, maintaining, and operating an apartment building or apartment buildings to be occupied by its stockholders or members; and”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Markow