387 So. 2d 184 - Ragland v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently February 2016
13 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 Hall V, Hall · Wood v. Barnett · Meador v. Meador · Raper v. Belk · English v. Brantley
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Upon the filing of any petition for a sale for division of any property, real or personal, held by joint owners or tenants in common, the court shall provide for the purchase of the interests of the joint owners or tenants in common filing for the petition or any others named therein who agree to the sale by the other joint owners or tenants in common or any one of them. Provided that the joint owners or tenants in common interested in purchasing such interests shall notify the court of same not later than 10 days prior to the date set for trial of the case and shall be allowed to purchase whether default has been entered against them or not. (Acts 1979, No. 79-334, p. 532, § 1.)"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"This amendment to the partition statute engrafts a viable option whereby [those nonconsenting parties], upon compliance with the prescribed notice, may invoke the authority of the court to purchase the interest of the petitioner. . . . "Admittedly, § 35-6-100 is not a model of draftsmanship. Initially, it inadvertently speaks only of `filing of any petition for a sale for division,' when obviously it means to address the procedure authorized by § 35-6-20 , et seq., for partition or sale for division. . . . Furthermore, this first sentence of § 35-6-100 could be grammatically improved, and this made clearer, by setting off with commas the phrase `. . . or any others named therein who agree to the sale. . . .' "From a more substantive point of view, we should also observe that the amended statutory scheme is no `cure all.' . . . [For example], if less than all of the nonconsenting defendants agree to purchase the plaintiff's interest, the invocation of this statute would result only in a consolidation of certain interests which, of itself, would not avoid the subsequent operative effect of the already existing statutory procedure. Indeed, the facts of the instant case . . . [are] illustrative of this very point. The remaining nonconsenting owners could insist, first, upon partition in kind, or, failing that, upon sale for division [of] the proceeds."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“makes it mandatory, upon the filing of a petition for sale for division, that the court provide for the purchase of the petitioner's interest by the other joint owners if they notify the court of their interest in purchasing petitioner's interest at least ten days before the day set for trial. Thus, § 35-6-100 is *Page 548 applicable to the instant proceeding, and it was error for the court to order a public sale without consideration of § 35-6-100 . Appellee contends that the word”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prince v. Hunter
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.