Rubenstein v. Mueller’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably United States ex rel. O'Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2016), Gregory v. Estate of Gregory (1993)
3 federal appellate · 18 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 Rastetter v. . Hoenninger · Tutunjian v. Vetzigian · Hermann v. . Ludwig · In re the Estate of Hoyt · In re the Accounting of Carr
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Separation agreements are usually attended by a present division of any jointly held property, and any provision for a future legacy is usually but an incident to the over-all settlement to be made with respect to the husband’s individual property and his obligation of support. In the case of the joint will, however, this instrument typically represents the sole attempt by the signatories to effect a distribution of their collective property in a fashion agreeable to both. Most importantly, in those separation agreements there was no irrevocable obligation concerning the collective property. The husband did not ... become sole owner of jointly owned property by virtue of surviving the former wife. As the divorced husband’s property after the agreement remains his own individual property, to which he holds beneficial as well as legal title, his widow’s right of election may be asserted against such assets. 225 N.E.2d at 544 , 278 N.Y.S.2d at 850 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shimp v. Huff“As to the collective property we feel that, on the death of one party to the joint will, the survivor was bound by the mutual agreement that the named beneficiaries should receive the property remaining when the survivor died. [T]he agreement embodied in the joint will provides that “Upon the death of the second . . . the estate of the second ... is hereby bequeathed, devised and disposed of as follows.” The survivor’s right to full ownership of the collective property is transformed and modified by this joint agreement, effective upon the other’s death as stated above, into but an interest during the life of the survivor with power to use the principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.