Arnold v. Leonard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 6 district · 210 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 318 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““All property, both real and personal, of the wife, owned or claimed by her before marriage, and that acquired afterward by gift, devise or descent, shall be her separate property; and laws shall be passed more clearly defining the rights of the wife, in relation as well to her separate property as that held in common with her husband. Laws shall also be passed providing for the registration of the wife’s separate property.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northern Texas Traction Co. v. Hill · Hunt v. Commissioner

2. ““Neither the separate property of the wife nor the rents from the wife’s separate real estate, nor the interest on bonds and notes belonging to her, nor dividends on stocks owned by her, nor her personal earnings, shall be subject to the payment of debts contracted by the husband.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Willcutt v. Willcutt · First Nat. Bank of Lewisville v. Davis

3. ““The Aets of 1913, 1917, and 1921 * * * grant to the wife the sole management, control, and disposition of her separate property, both real and personal, and exempt same from payment of debts contracted by the husband. * * * As respects cotton belonging to the wife’s separate estate, the statutory provision since 1913 has been simply that it shall be subject to the wife’s sole management, control, and disposition. Her authority in disposing of this kind of property is as broad and unrestricted as is the authority which the statute allows to the husband with respect to his own separate property. “We think the Legislature intended the wife to exercise contractual discretion — as complete and comprehensive as was formerly possessed by the husband — in the management and disposition of ordinary chattels such as cotton. Not only have the statutes since 1913 committed entire dominion over such property to the wife alone, but they have gone further and expressly exempted, not only the husband’s separate property, but all community property, except such as is placed under the wife’s single control, from the payment of debts contracted by the wife save for necessaries for herself or children. The almost obvious implication of the statutes is to make her separate property and the portions of the community committed to her charge liable for the payment of the wife’s contracts entered into as necessary incidents to the exercise of her powers of management, control, and disposition. For, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Gutierrez