Goldstein v. Goldstein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is a general principle of the law of this Commonwealth that neither spouse may partition entireties property prior to divorce. Shapiro v. Shapiro, 424 Pa. 120, 136 , 224 A.2d 164, 173 (1966); Livingston v. Livingston, 288 Pa.Super. 22 , 430 A.2d 1193 (1981). An exception exists where one spouse has wrongfully appropriated entireties property for his or her own use and to the exclusion and detriment of the other spouse. Shapiro, supra; Stemniski v. Stemniski, 403 Pa. 38 , 169 A.2d 51 (1961); Berhalter v. Berhalter, 315 Pa. 225 , 173 A. 172 (1934); Gray v. Gray, 275 Pa.Super. 131 , 418 A.2d 646 (1980); Vento v. Vento, 256 Pa.Super. 91 , 389 A.2d 615 (1978). Such an appropriation ‘works revocation of the estate by the fiction of appropriation’s being an offer of an agreement to destroy the estate and an acceptance of that offer when the spouse starts suit; the property is then fit for accounting and division.’ Stemniski, supra 403 Pa. at 42 , 169 A.2d at 53 . The entireties property subject to partition is then divided equally, Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 396 Pa. 530, 534-35 , 153 A.2d 901, 905 (1959), with each spouse becoming the sole owner of his or her partitioned share of the property. Stemniski, supra; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 181 Pa.Super. 581 , 124 A.2d 709 (1956).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 379 Pa. Super. 426 - Conrady v. Conrady

2. “The nature of a tenancy by the entire-ties can be understood by visualizing two persons holding a pole, one person on either end. Each person holds the entire pole, but jointly with the spouse holding the other end of the pole. If the pole is partitioned by severing the pole into two equal parts, neither person acquires anything which he or she did not have before the severance took place. The parties merely hold by themselves one-half of the whole which they previously held together. It cannot be said under such circumstances that either party has “acquired” new or additional property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In Re Martin