Becker v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As regards the question of the power of a court to compel a party before it to convey real property located in another state, we believe that the United States Supreme Court firmly established such authority in Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1 , 30 S.Ct. 3 , 54 L.Ed. 65 (1909). There, the Court held that while it was clear that the disposition of real estate was to be governed by the law of the state where the land was situated, and that no decree or conveyance of property except by the party vested with title was effective beyond the jurisdiction of that court, a court of equity with in person-am jurisdiction could, in the proper case, by virtue of its power over the person of a party, “ ‘compel him to act in relation to property not within its jurisdiction.’ ” 30 S.Ct. at 7 . The Court further explained that such a “ ‘decree does not operate directly on the property nor affect the title, but is made effectual through the coercion of the defendant; as, for instance, by directing a deed to be executed or cancelled by or on behalf of the party.’ ” Id. The Court pointed out that this authority stemmed from a limited but well-defined exception to the territorial limitation imposed on the courts of one state over the property of another state. This exception was defined thusly: A court of equity, having authority to act upon the person, may indirectly act upon real estate in another state, through the instrumentality of this authority over the person. Whatever it may do through the par”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fehr v. Fehr