Fries v. Kracklauer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A glance at the deed, the material parts of which are quoted supra, discloses that the word ‘jointly,’ upon which appellants must and do rely, appears but once in the conveyance and there but in the part of the instrument which is merely introductory, which describes or identifies the parties, and in no sense undertakes or purports to grant title or describe the nature of the title intended to be conveyed. “When we consider the parts of the deed vital for the purpose of divesting title from the grantor and vesting title in the grantees, we find that the terms then used are: ‘the said parties of the second part, and to their heirs and assigns forever.’ These are the recognized appropriate terms used to create a tenancy in common. They clearly negative the idea of survivorship, the fundamental feature of joint tenancy. Mustain v. Gardner, 203 Ill. 284 ( 67 N. E. 779 ); Overheiser v. Lackey, 207 N. Y. 229 ( 100 N. E. 738 , Ann. Cas. 1914 C, 229). The word ‘jointly’may be considered here to have been evidently used in the popular or common understanding rather than as a technical legal phrase. Wunderlich v. Bleyle, 96 N. J. Eq. 135 ( 125 Atl. 386 ).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Taylor v. Taylor