137 N.J. Super. 56 - Garlinger v. Garlinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 39 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘If it is shown that the wife is being supported in whole or in part by the paramour, the former husband may come into court for a determination of whether the alimony should be terminated or reduced. Similarly, if the paramour resides in the wife’s home without contributing anything toward the purchase of food or the payment of normal household bills, then there may be a reasonable inference that the wife’s alimony is being used, at least in part, for the benefit of the paramour, in which case it could be argued with force that the amount thereof should be modified accordingly. In short, the inquiry is whether the former -wife’s illicit relationship with another man * * * has produced a change of circumstances sufficient to entitle the former husband to relief.’” Quoting Garlinger v. Garlinger (1975), 137 N.J.Super. 56, 64 , 347 A.2d 799, 803 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 116 Ohio App. 3d 823 - Wallenhurst v. Wallenhurst · Reese v. Weis

2. “It is appropriate to add at this point that we do not intend to condone conduct that may either amount to the commission of a crime or be offensive to moral standards held by substantial segments of the community. But our obligation here is to implement the legal purposes of post divorce support and not to pretend to be keepers of the public morals. Garlinger, 137 N.J.Super. at 64-65 , 347 A.2d at 803-04 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Conlon v. Conlon · Pence v. Pence

3. “[T]he record does not support a suspension beyond March 2, 1974, in view of the acknowledged absence of proof that Mrs. Garlinger and her paramour cohabited after that date or that he was supporting her. As for the period between the beginning of November and March 2, 1974, all that appears, besides the cohabitation in Mrs. Garlinger’s residence, is that the paramour did not contribute anything toward the cost of food or such household expenses as utilities. Although it is evident that a part of the alimony payments received by Mrs. Garlinger necessarily inured to the benefit of her friend, there were no findings below with respect to the amount so used or to whether this reflected a lack of need for that money by Mrs. Garlinger so as to justify a reduction in or suspension of the alimony payments for the period in question.”

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