131 Ind. App. 38 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 18 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The courts shall fix the amount of alimony and shall enter a judgment for such sum, and specify the character and method of payment, which in his discretion he deems to be just and proper under all of the evidence, including any valid separation agreement which may have been introduced into evidence. In determining the character of the payments of the alimony the court may require it to be paid in money, other property, or both, and may order the transfer of property as between the parties, whether real, personal or mixed and whether title at the time of trial is held by the parties jointly or by one of them individually. In determining the method of the payment of the alimony the court may require that it be paid in gross or in periodic payments, either equal or unequal, and if to be paid in periodic payments the court may further provide for their discontinuance or reduction upon the death or remarriage of the wife, and, in his discretion, the court may further provide for such security, bond, or other guarantee as shall be satisfactory to the court for the purpose of securing the obligation to make such periodic payments. Said judgment shall be a lien upon the real estate and chattels real of the spouse liable therefor to the extent that it is payable immediately but shall not be such a lien to the extent that it is payable in the future unless and to the extent such decree so provides expressly. Such amount as shall be awarded, regardless of the character or method of it”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 Ind. App. 649 - Wellington v. Wellington

2. ““As can be seen, the statute is very broad and permits the trial court to be very liberal in construing what is alimony, although the same statute provides for periodic payments of alimony, with provision that they may be discontinued or reduced on death or remarriage of the wife. It uses the word ‘spouse’ in referring to the judgment lien on property. As was said in the case of Walker et al. v. Walker et al. (1898), 150 Ind. 317, 328 , 50 N. E. 68 , 71: “ ‘Where the wife proves recreant to her marriag-e obligations, and has destroyed the marital union by acts of adultery or other gross misconduct, and her husband is thereby entitled to a decree of divorce, the court granting the same, has the discretionary power, and, under proper circumstances warranting the same, will generally exercise it, and allot to the injured husband such a portion of the property or means which he had settled upon the wife as will place him in the position, to some extent at least, which he would have occupied had the union continued.’ “This rule was approved in Mendenhall v. Mendenhall (1946), 116 Ind. App. 545 , 64 N. E. 2d 806 , and in the case of Wallace v. Wallace, supra. Therefore, without holding so, we do not come to the arbitrary conclusion that a husband is not entitled to alimony in this state given the proper surrounding- circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 146 Ind. App. 455 - Miller v. Miller

3. ““Although the word ‘shall’ is used in these statutes (Secs. 3-1217 and 3-1218 Burns) in regard to fixing the amount of alimony, it is not required that the trial court make an allowance of alimony. It has been held that the word relates only to the amount of alimony, when the Court deems it proper to allow it. It is well known to be the law in Indiana that a Court may adjust property rights between the parties in a divorce proceeding without awarding alimony. Therefore, neither the statute nor common law in Indiana makes it obligatory upon the trial court in a divorce proceeding to allow alimony.” (Citations omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 145 Ind. App. 479 - Dunbar v. DUNBAR