King v. Greene’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 62 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the judgment creditors of either spouse may levy and execute upon their separate rights of survivorship.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sawada v. Endo · 260 F. Supp. 978 - In Re Ved Elva, Inc.

2. “[t|he unique form of concurrent ownership at common law, labeled estates by the entirety, may be traced into antiquity at least as far back as the 14lh and 15th Centuries. 3 Holdsworth, History of the English Law (3d ed.1928), 128; Kepner, ‘The Effect of an Attempted Creation of an Estate by the Entirety in Unmarried Grantees, 6 Rutgers L.Rev. 550 (1952). The estate was unique because of the common-law concept of unity of husband and wife and the positing of that unity in the person of the husband during coverture. Putnam, “The Theory of Estates by the Entirety,’ 4 Southern L.Rev. 91 (1879). A husband and wife cannot hold by moieties [i.e. in halves] or in severalty, said Littleton, ‘and the cause is, for that the husband and wife are but one person in law. * * * ’ Coke on Littleton, see. 291. Blackstone, in his judicial capacity, noted: ‘This estate (entirety) differs from joint-tenancy, because joint-tenants take by moieties, and are each seised of an undivided moiety [i.e. half] of the whole, per my et per tout [i.e. by that half and by the whole], which draws after it the incident of survivorship or jus accrescendi [i.e. the right of survivorship], unless either party chooses in his life-time to sever the jointure. But husband and wife, being considered in law as one person, they cannot, during the coverture take separate estates; and therefore upon a purchase made by them both, they cannot be seised by moieties, but both and each has the entirety. They are seised of thei”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 22 N.J. Tax 166 - Hennefeld v. Township of Montclair · 18 133 72145 Ward Bowest Corporation

3. “hold as tenants in common for their joint lives; that survivorship exists as at common law and is indestructible by unilateral action; and that the rights of each spouse in the estate are alienable, voluntarily or involuntarily, the purchaser becoming a tenant in common with the remaining spouse for the joint lives of the husband and wife. [ King, supra, 30 N.J. at 412 , 153 A.2d 49 . ]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Freda v. Commercial Trust Co.