Chandler v. Cheney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 57 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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he same difference which existed at common law between joint tenants and tenants by entireties continues to exist under our statute. In both, the title and estate are joint, and each has the quality of survivorship, but the marked difference between the two consists in this: that in a joint tenancy, either tenant may convey his share to a co-tenant, or even to a stranger, who thereby becomes tenant in common with the other co-tenant; while neither tenant by the entirety can convey his or her interest so as to affect their joint use of the property during their joint lives, or to defeat the right of survivorship upon the death of either of the co-tenants; and there may be a partition between joint tenants, while there can be none between tenants by entireties. See sec. 1 of "an act concerning the partition of lands," 2 G. & H. 361.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Flatrock River Lodge v. Morris Stout and Tonia Sue Stout

2. “[W]hen the legislature provided that husband and wife should not be tenants in common, but by entireties, the intention was to guard and protect the rights of the wife by depriving the husband of the power to alien or encumber the same without her consent and concurrence, or to charge the same with his debts, or to exercise sole control, or to enjoy exclusive possession thereof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cheryl L. Underwood v. Thomas Bunger, in his capacity as the personal representative of the estate of Kenneth K. Kinney Judith M. Fulford and Sheree Demming

3. “"To create a joint tenancy, under the above sections,, between persons who are not husband and wife, it is necessary that the intention shall be expressly declared in the instrument, or it must manifestly appear from the tenor of the instrument.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nicholson v. Caress