Speier v. Opfer’s Empirical Analysis
1888
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Sawada v. Endo (1977), Dickey v. Converse (1898)
1 federal appellate · 22 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 Russel v. People's Savings Bank · Manwaring v. Powell · Jenne v. Marble · Bassett v. Shepardson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ In this case the property to be improved and benefited was held by husband and wife jointly, and not as the separate property of the wife. Only at the death of the husband could the wife claim it as her separate property. During the lives of both, neither has an absolute’inheritáble interest] neither can be said to hold an undivided half. They take by entireties, and at the death of the wife the whole passes at once to the husband. Manwaring v. Powell, 40 Mich. 371 ; Allen v. Allen, 47 Mich. 74 ( 10 N. W. 113 ); AEtna Ins. Co. v. Resh, 40 Mich. 241 . Neither has such a separate interest that he or she could sell, incumber, or devise, or which his or her heir could inherit. Vinton v. Beamer, 55 Mich. 559 ( 22 N. W. 40 ); Fisher v. Provin, 25 Mich. 347 . It is 'an entirety, in which both take the same and inseparable interest. Neither can affect the other’s rights by a separate transfer, and whatever will defeat the interest of one will defeat the other’s. Vinton v. Beamer, supra.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fowles v. Hayden““There is no conflict of authority upon this question, that the contract of a married woman, to be enforced, must have relation to her separate estate. In the present case, the property being held by husband and wife jointly, by entireties, it cannot be treated as her separate property, so that she becomes liable under the contract, even if one was made as claimed by the plaintiffs. The action cannot be maintained against the defendants jointly.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ehinger v. Fiske
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.