Wolfe v. Stanford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 47 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Denial of the remedy of partition can- only be justified in the most extreme cases . .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Daughtrey v. Daughtrey · Thomsen v. Thomsen

2. ““In Clark v. Mercer Oil Co., supra, it is stated as a rule of pleading that such additional allegations are necessary when partition is not available under the statute. The rule is subject to grave doubt. It was adopted from the Kansas case of Beardsley et al. v. Kansas Natural Gas Co., 96 P. 859 , wherein it was announced without supporting authority. The theory of the Kansas court was that the right to partition property under the statute was absolute, whereas the right to partition in equity was not. The absolute nature of the right to partition had been previously recognized by the Kansas court in Kinkead v. Maxwell et al., 75 Kan. 50 , 88 P. 523 . This case was cited in the Beardsley Case as establishing the absolute nature of the right under the statute. But in the Beardsley Case the important fact was overlooked that the absolute nature of the right was not recognized in the Kinkead Case in consideration of the wording of the statute or the nature of the remedy. It was, on the contrary, based upon the generally recognized rule independent of the statute, and the principal supporting authority was an Illinois equity case of Martin v. Martin (Ill.) 48 N. E. 924 , 62 A. S. R. 411 (in which the general rule was recognized, but the existence of exceptions noted). See, also, Hill v. Reno, 112 Ill. 154 , 54 Am. Rep. 222 . Thus the Kansas court said, in effect, the right is absolute under the statute because it is absolute in equity; then later, that the right of partition tho”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Strait v. Fuller · Harper v. Ford

3. ““Do these views then justify the questionable rule of pleading announced in the Mercer Case? We think not. Presumably a complaining party invokes a remedy for a justifiable end. Fraud or oppression in the use of the remedy is not to be presumed. If the action is to be defeated upon that ground, the matter is one of defense to be pleaded and proved as such. The rule of pleading as announced in Clark v. Mercer Oil Co., supra, is overruled.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harper v. Ford · Colonial Royalties Co. v. Hinds