In re Beihl’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This ‘venerable ancl unique common-law estate,’ to use Mr. Justice Stewart’s phrase, is founded upon the fiction that husband and, wife are one person, and not two; but it is nevertheless conceived of as giving the entire interest in the whole property, not.to the two jointly, but simultaneously to each, and as giving it without possibility of severance. These completely inter-fused interests cannot be divided by partition; neither owner can dispose of it except as a whole, and neither can dispose of it without the concurrence of the other. But, from another point of view, each has only an expectancy, for, upon the death of one, the other takes the whole in severalty, not by survivorship, but by the original title.' Of course, it is possible to reason about such a perplexing abstraction, and rules have been gradually evolved to govern the nécessarily conflicting interests that are thus compelled to live together without the possibility of divorce. But, as may be supposed, while these rules may be the result of reasoning in- forms of the syllogism, they are apt to be artificial, and sometimes they lead to a contradiction in terms. For example: Each of these curious tenants owns what may be a valuable interest, but cannot exercise the most distinctive characteristic of ownership—the power of disposition. The husband owns the entire estate, but so does the wife, and therefore, if he should be permitted to sell it, he would be selling her property. Nor may he incumber it, except”

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