41 Tenn. App. 222 - Preston v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Finch v. Monumental Life Insurance (1987), 61 Tenn. App. 677 - Freeman v. Martin Robowash, Inc. (1970)
2 federal appellate · 27 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 Watts v. McCloud · Littlefield State Bank v. Moore · Stine & Clark v. Mundy Fuel Co. · Alfred v. Bankers' Shippers' Ins. Co. · Hicks v. Sprankle
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine of presumption of title rests upon the simple fact of long-continued use and enjoyment, and requires no aid for ‘color of title.’ Possession of land is prima-facie evidence of title; the law supposes that it had a legal origin, and when undisturbed for the period of twenty years, it becomes, in view of the law, an assurance of title of no less force or efficacy than the actual grant whose place it supplies. The presumption is not. founded upon the idea that as a matter of fact a grant once existed, nor is it aided by the fact that the possession may have been held under some defective form of assurance : it rests alone upon a principle of public policy, to quiet the title of those who can show no other title than long-continued possession and use.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Where an obligation is taken to husband and wife, such joint security or chose in action survives to the wife as against the personal representative of the husband. It makes no difference whether the consideration of the chose in action passes from the husband or not. The form of the security implies a design on the husband’s part to benefit the wife, and the law will effectuate this design.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Today, tenancy by the entirety arises only when the grantor or testator intends that it should. Husband and wife take as tenants' in common or joint tenants if the conveyance so indicates. If the conveyance is to the husband and wife without any affirmative expression of how they are to take, there is a presumption that they take by the entirety.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.