125 Ill. App. 2d 116 - Haring v. Haring’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While we recognize that adultery seldom can be proved as a direct fact and that it may be established by circumstantial evidence (Stiles v. Stiles, 167 Ill. 576 , 47 N.E. 867 (1897); Marcy v. Marcy, 400 Ill. 152 , 79 N.E.2d 207 (1948)), we cannot say that the evidence in this case is such that the trial court erred in finding that the defense of adultery had not been proved by a preponderance of the evidence. * ” to establish adultery by circumstantial evidence, the proofs must convince the mind affirmatively that actual adultery was committed, since nothing but the carnal act can lay the foundation for a divorce. * * *’ Fowler v. Fowler, 315 Ill.App. 270 , 42 N.E.2d 954, 957 ( 4th Dist. 1942). Likewise, in order to establish adultery, proof of the clearest and most convincing character must be offered that an actual carnal act of adultery was committed. Metoyer v. Metoyer, 92 Ill.App.2d 32 , 235 N.E.2d 882 (1st Dist. 1968) (abst.).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Ill. App. 3d 329 - Bilsky v. Bilsky

2. “Defendant’s defense of recrimination, affirmatively pleaded, if proved, would have barred plaintiff’s,divorce. The defense of recrimination has been repeatedly recognized by the courts of this State. As was stated in Elston v. Elston, 344 Ill.App. 233 , 100 N.E.2d 635, 639 (2nd Dist. 1951), “ ‘Under such circumstances the rule long ago announced in Duberstein v. Duberstein, 171 111. 133, 49 N.E. 316, 320 [1898], is clearly applicable here. As in that case, the defendant asserted recrimination in defense of plaintiff’s charges and thus we repeat: “Divorce is a remedy provided for an innocent party * * *; so that, when each party has committed a cause for divorce, the causes being of the same statutory character, neither can complain of the other. * * " * * *.”’ Levy v. Levy, 388 111. 179, 57 N.E.2d 366, 370 (1944). Such an affirmative defense, however, must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”

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