Hoffmann v. Newell’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Fairclaw v. Forrest (1942), Sawada v. Endo (1977)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 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 Beihl v. Martin · Bernatavicius v. Bernatavicius · Beddingfield v. Estill & Newman · City of Louisville v. Coleburne
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[l]and to which the defendant has a legal or equitable title in fee, for life or for a term, whether in possession, reversion or remainder, or in which the defendant has a contingent interest or a contingent remainder or a defeasible fee, may be taken and sold under execution.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A conveyance to a husband and wife as tenants by the entirety creates one indivisible estate in them both and the survivor, which neither can destroy by any separate act. Alienation by either the husband or the wife will not defeat the right of the survivor to the entire estate on the death of the other. There can be no severance of such estate by the acts of either alone without the assent of the other, and no partition during their joint lives, and the survivor becomes seized as sole owner of the whole estate regardless of anything the other may have done.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“• the criminal defendant’s spouse has the vested right and title to the exclusive ownership of the entire property during her life time; • if she survives the criminal defendant, “she would then be vested with full title to the Property in fee simple, regardless of any interest the United States may acquire through her husband;” • The government cannot sell the property during the period in which it is held by the criminal defendant’s spouse as a tenant by the entirety with the right of survivorship; • If the criminal defendant survives his spouse, then the government receives title to the property in fee simple; and • the government may only sell the criminal defendant’s contingent estate in the property. But such a sale does not defeat his spouse’s current right to and interest in the estate.”
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.