Yates v. Guest’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 4 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Of course, so long as the property remains in the possession of the fraudulent grantee, she, it would seem, is not subject to a personal judgment, in a court of equity, in favor of the creditors of the grantor. The proper course is for such creditors to pursue the property and fasten their lien thereon. But the fraudulent grantee occupies the position of trustee and is liable to account therefor as a trustee for such creditors. The trust is imposed by law, and is imposed on the donee in invitum. “If the grantee, law imposed trustee, has disposed on the property, a court of equity will require her to account therefor, and, to the extent necessary to satisfy the pursuing creditor’s claim, such grantee will be held liable for the full value of the property recovered by him, regardless of what he may have paid for it. “And it seems to be the general rule that the fraudulent grantee, if he has sold the property, must account for its fair and reasonable value at the time and place he received it, with interest. Of course, for the ascertained value of the property a personal decree may be entered against such grantee, at least to the extent necessary to satisfy the pursuing creditors’ claims. “If the fraudulent grantee has disposed of the property, or any part of it, she may be forced to account for the reasonable value thereof at the time and place she received it, and a personal judgment may be rendered against her therefor, the same as if she were not the wife of the grantor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 718 So. 2d 1142 - Cotton Energy Corporation v. Smith

2. “"In Bernhard this Court held that language in a deed conveying property to grantees as joint tenants with rights of survivorship effectively created a tenancy in common with cross-contingent remainders in each of the tenants. The Court further held that the cross-contingent remainders were indestructible, except with the consent of both cotenants."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 425 So. 2d 1108 - Johnson v. Keener