Phy v. Phy’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 1949 · most notably Briggs v. Briggs (1945), Prime v. Prime (1943)
6 federal appellate · 29 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 Emerson v. Emerson · Cohen v. Cohen · Nelson v. Nelson · Lynde v. Lynde · 39 Cal. App. 62 - Tremper v. Tremper
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the case at bar, the lower court based its decree awarding alimony wholly upon a stipulation made in writing, and the record of that -writing is before us. The case is heard here anew upon the identical writing that was before the court -below. The words of that writing, in this court as in that court, are to be given their ordinary meaning. Erom the language thereof, we -deduce that the word ‘alimony* was used in its ordinary sense. “ ‘Alimony is the allowance which the husband is compelled to pay for his wife’s maintenance while she is living apart from him, or after she has been -divorced. * * * The law will recognize her right of support and maintenance and will make provision for her out of his income o-r estate. It is founded upon the marital obligation to support and maintain, and is awarded by the court in enforcement of his obligatoin and duty.’ Keezer, Marriage & Divorce (2d Ed.) § 660.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shoop v. Shoop““When the allowance for alimony or maintenance arises from a consideration of the restitution of property brought to the husband by the wife, the decree awarding such maintenance should be regarded as a final adjudication of the matter. But, as said by Mr. Justice Wolverton in speaking for this court in Brandt v. Brandt, 40 Or. 477, 486 ( 67 P. 508, 510 ): 'Where it is made as a matter of support and maintenance merely, then the changed condition of the parties, as where the faculties of the husband have diminished, or the divorced wife has acquired other facilities or means of support, will warrant such a revision or modification, diminishing or cutting off the allowance in toto, as may seem reasonable and proper * * See also 19 C. J. 275, § 622.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Warner v. Warner““There is no contention here that the wife ever brought any property into the estate of her husband, or that the award of alimony or maintenance was based upon the relinquishment of any property rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prime v. Prime
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.