Miracle v. Miracle’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2010
15 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 Overall v. City of Madisonville · McCullough's Adm'r v. Anderson · Meredith v. Meredith · Coquillard v. Coquillard · Thompson v. Thompson
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A life tenant may not have partition of land and an allocation of a part of it in fee in proportion to the value of his interest and that of the remaindermen so that a present absolute property in their respective portions would rest in each. Coquillard v. Coquillard, supra [ 62 Ind.App. 489 , 113 N.E. 481 ]; Carson v. Hecke, 282 Mo. 580 , 222 S.W. 850 ; Walton Bank & Trust Co. v. Glinn, 161 Ky. 60 , 170 S.W. 511 . Nor can remaindermen have compulsory partition where there is an outstanding life estate in the entire property. Duke v. Allen, 198 Ky. 368 , 248 S.W. 894 ; Piermann v. Piermann’s Guardian, 187 Ky. 392 , 219 S.W. 156 ; Lindenberger v. Cornell, 190 Ky. 844 , 229 S.W. 54 . While under several sections of our statute and Code of Practice, the courts may order partition or sale of property which cannot be divided without material impairment in value where a widow has dower or widower curtesy or a life right in a portion thereof, and may, alternatively, award a gross sum to such owner absolutely as being the present value of his or her life right, the statutes do not confer such power on the courts where the life estate is in the entire property. Piermann v. Piermann’s Guardian, supra. If the circumstances are such as to call for the exercise of judicial power to sell property in which there is a life right, the proceeds are held by the court until reinvested under its orders, and there is no power in the court to divide the proceeds between the life tenant and the rem”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.