Krasnow v. Krasnow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 141 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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “While an action for divorce is a creature of statute, it is essentially equitable in its nature. (Citations omitted.) "The basis of the allowance [to a wife for expenses of divorce litigation] is that she should not be deprived of her rights because she lacks funds which may be supplied from property in which as a wife, she has a real interest but which is usually within the control of the husband." (Citations omitted.) Under the common law of England and of most of the states of the union, the power to make an allowance for counsel fees and expenses of litigation in matters pertaining to actions for divorce is inherent in the court. (Citations omitted.) While a judgment for divorce terminates the respective obligations of the husband and wife to live together, there are, nevertheless, duties and responsibilities which arose by reason of the marriage relation and which survive the decree. Thus the court may make an award of alimony to be paid from the husband's income which it has the continuing power to enforce and modify. (Citations omitted.) The same holds true as to the award of the custody of a child during his minority. (Citations omitted.) Where, in a CT Page 3604 divorce action, custody of a minor child is awarded to the wife, and the husband refuses to recognize her right thereto under the decree and seeks to have the court reverse or modify it, in order to ensure that justice is done the court may require that he provide her with the means for her defense, if she is”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3601 - Donoghue v. Donoghue, No. Fa84-0217757 (Apr. 30, 1991)

2. “The plaintiff's first contention is that the court was without jurisdiction to make any award of custody because the child was not a resident of, or domiciled in, this state at the time the divorce action was begun or the judgment entered. * * * The defendant having submitted to the jurisdiction of the court, the whole matter of the marital status of the parties and the effect of any change therein upon minor children was before the court. Fagan v. Fagan, 131 Conn. 688, 690 , 42 A.2d 41 ; Maloney v. Maloney, 67 Cal. App.2d 278, 280 , 154 P.2d 426 ; Stephens v. Stephens, 53 Idaho 427, 437 , 24 P.2d 52 ; Talbot v. Talbot, 120 Mont. 167, 173 , 181 P.2d 148 ; Wilson v. Wilson, 66 Nev. 405 , 212 P.2d 1066, 1072 ; Anderson v. Anderson, 74 W. Va. 124, 126 , 81 S.E. 706 . * * * Furthermore, one such as this plaintiff, who has invoked the jurisdiction of the court in order to secure a divorce and the custody of a minor child, cannot thereafter assail it. Morrill v. Morrill, 83 Conn. 479, 489 , 77 A. 1 ; Blair v. Blair, 48 Ariz. 501, 507 , 62 Pac. (2d) 1321 ; 3 Freeman, Judgments (5th Ed.), section 1438; 27 C.J.S., Divorce, section 171, page 815.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re on Behalf of Enke

3. “The basis of the allowance [to a wife for expenses of divorce litigation] is that she should not be deprived of her rights because she lacks funds which may be supplied from property in which as a wife, she has a real interest but which is usually within the control of the husband.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 3601 - Donoghue v. Donoghue, No. Fa84-0217757 (Apr. 30, 1991)