Alexander v. Boyer’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 150 - Tenhet v. Boswell (1976), Bruce v. Dyer (1987)
2 district · 45 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 11 Cal. App. 2d 451 - Swartzbaugh v. Sampson · Eder v. Rothamel · Wolf v. Johnson · Williams v. Dovell · Partridge v. Berliner
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We pointed out in Madine that in Maryland and in accordance with the law generally, a contract to convey will terminate a joint tenancy under circumstances in which a transfer of legal title would do so, so that the executed and delivered deed [in Madine] transferred the full equitable interest in the land (the grantor holding a bare legal title for the benefit of the State) and resulted in a termination of the joint tenancy. In the instant case, however, the [contract] was an option contract and until the conditions precedent were met and the option was exercised by Dr. Levine, no equitable interest or estate passed to Dr. Levine on which specific performance could be granted____ Under these circumstances, the [contract] would not impair any of the four unities and would not result in a severance or termination of the joint tenancy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““[E]ach joint tenant had an undivided interest as an individual which was equal to the interest of every other cotenant. Since they were seised together as a fictitious unity, there was necessarily a community of interest which required their individual interests be equal in all respects. The later books recite that four unities were essential to a joint tenancy, those of time, title, interest and possession. The requirement of the four unities expresses in an artificial way the basic idea that cotenants hold as a unity with a community of interest between them, since if they take as one they must take at the same time, by the same deed or feoffment, and must have interests which are identical.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Downing v. Downing
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.