Graev v. Graev’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 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. “Today, as a Court, we unanimously reject the rule that economic interdependence is a sine qua non of cohabitation. Aside from the textual and contractual considerations, that rule makes little sense practically because a party receiving maintenance can easily evade the consequence of a termination provision and receive more than the benefit of his or her bargain. Mrs. Graev and M.P., for example, would be free to continue their relationship in its current form indefinitely without violating the termination provision—they could be together 24 hours a day and sleep together every night for years—but as long as they maintain separate bank accounts and do not share expenses, they would not be cohabitating under the economic unit concept. This is not how a cohabitation clause is supposed to work; nor is it what other parties anticipate when including similar cohabitation clauses in their agreements. [ Id. at [275-276, 869 N.Y.S.2d 866 , 898 N.E.2d 909 ] (Graffeo, J., dissenting).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Smith

2. “to live together as or as if a married couple”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Smith