Graves v. Graves’s Empirical Analysis
1908
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Katterhagen v. Meister (1913), Rothman v. Rumbeck (1939)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Ambrose v. Moore · Nichols v. Oppermann · Cox v. Tompkinson · Churchill v. Stephenson · Sherlock v. Denny
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“.“In this case the outward act of ownership consisted in possession, the collection of rents, and the payment of taxes by the respondent. “ ‘The mere receipt and retention by one cotenant in possession of all the rents and profits does not of itself constitute an adverse possession, and will not ripen into title as against the others, though continued for the statutory period.’ 1 Cyc. 1076. “The property appears to have been improved property, consisting of two dwelling houses. It was not shown that the rents and profits do not meet the taxes and other necessary expenses, or that respondent had refused to account for rents, or that appellant had ever requested an accounting. In fact, the appellant appears to have made her home in places distant from Spokane, and had no communication with respondent from 1893 until about 1906. We think she had a right to assume that the rents would meet all the expenses and that the respondent was holding the property as cotenant, because there were no outward acts which would put her on notice of an adverse claim. We do not think the appellant was guilty of laches. The record shows no improvements to have been made on the property since the separation of appellant and respondent. There has been no change of condition and no platting or mortgages or sales of any part of the property, as was the case in Cox v. Tompkinson, supra ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It was not claimed by the respondent that there was any written agreement, or that any of their property was passed by deed from one to the other, and it is conceded that the property in dispute was acquired and improved by community funds earned after marriage. The statute makes such property community property. Bal. Code, § 4490 (P. C. § 3876.) An oral agreement that such property might be held as separate property by one of the spouses would be in the face of this statute and also another statute which provides that all conveyances of real estate or any interest therein shall be by deed. Bal. Code, § 4517 (P. C. § 4435), Churchill v. Stephenson, 14 Wash. 620 , 45 Pac. 28 ; Nichols v. Oppermann, 6 Wash. 618 , 34 Pac. 162 ; Sherlock v. Denny, 28 Wash. 170 , 68 Pac. 452 . If such agreement was made as found, it was therefore void, and did not change the character which the law gave to the property.” Graves v. Graves, 48 Wash. 664 , 94 Pac. 481 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Million v. Parker
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.