Ronollo v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Green v. City of St. Louis (1994), Jacobs Manufacturing Co. v. Sam Brown Co. (1994)
12 federal appellate · 23 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 State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. LiMauro · Bruce v. Dyer · Linders v. Linders · Peerless Supply Co. v. Industrial Plumbing & Heating Co. · Davidson v. Eubanks
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Missouri and at common law an estate by the entirety possesses like characteristics. Unities of interest, time, title and possession exist in the husband and wife. Each spouse is seized of the whole or entirety and not a share, moiety or divisible part. Thus, neither spouse owns an undivided half interest in entirety property; the whole entirety estate is vested and held in each spouse and the whole continues in the survivor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Here, the [separation] decree did not alter the manner in which Mr. and Mrs. Ronollo held the property. The trial court did not set apart the real estate to either spouse but simply ordered the sale and a division of net proceeds thereafter. The language of the decree does not purport to affect the estate until the parties receive the proceeds. Conse quently, [until entry of a decree of dissolution of marriage], Mr. and Mrs. Ronol-lo remained owners of the real estate as tenants by the entirety.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(f) When Affidavits are Unavailable. Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.