Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 F.2d 11 - Croker v. Croker

Croker v. Croker’s Empirical Analysis

51 F.2d 11 · 1931

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2016

2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

40193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Hauenstein v. Lynham · Mitchell v. United States · Ennis v. Smith · Desmare v. United States · Pasco v. Harley

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"It is also clearly settled by the Florida decisions that while `the provisions of the homestead laws should be carried out in the liberal and beneficient spirit in which they were enacted, but at the same time great care should be taken to prevent them from becoming the instruments of fraud,' Jetton Lbr. Co. v. Hall, 67 Fla. 61 , 64 So. 440 , 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1121, those decisions strictly declare that, `The "exemptions" allowed do not attach to real estate that is not occupied as the home of the family.' The place must be not a theoretical, but a real place of residence. Solary v. Hewlett, 18 Fla. 756 ; Matthews v. Jeacle, 61 Fla. 686 , 55 So. 865 ; Pasco v. Harley, 73 Fla. 819 , 75 So. 30, 32 . Under the Florida decisions, actual occupancy of a home with intention to remain there and make it the home of the family, the place of their actual use and occupancy, is essential to the homestead right. Loring v. Wittich, 16 Fla. 498 ; Oliver v. Snowden, 18 Fla. 823 , 43 Am.Rep. 338 ; Drucker v. Rosenstein, 19 Fla. 191 . Further, the right to the exemption may be lost after it accrues by the owner ceasing to be the `head of a family residing in this state,' Matthews v. Jeacle, 61 Fla. 686 , 55 So. 865 , 867; Herrin v. Brown, 44 Fla. 782 , 33 So. 522 , 103 Am.St.Rep. 182 ; or by the abandonment of the property as the home of the family, Murphy v. Farquhar, 39 Fla. 350 , 22 So. 681 ; Pasco v. Harley, 73 Fla. 819 , 75 So. 30, 33 . In these respects the decisions of Florida but emphas”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"It will not serve any purpose to discuss or analyze these cases. All of them are really fact cases wherein conclusions, are reached upon the controlling facts therein, and the same judge would, upon their varying facts, have decided all of them in principle in the same way."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.