Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 SW2D 974 - Perales v. Flores

Perales v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
October 1988
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1988

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

5019411950196019701980decided

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 Grigsby v. Reib · Edelstein v. J.M. Brown · Schwingle v. Keifer · Evans v. Santana Live Stock & Land Co. · Baylor v. Hopf

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the case of Schwingle v. Keifer, [Tex.Civ.App.,] 135 S.W. 194, 196 , the late Chief Justice Fly, speaking for this Court, said: ‘In this case it has been attempted to prove the contract of marriage between appellant and Jacob Schwingle by the statements of appellant as to a positive agreement, as well as by cohabitation and by his declarations, and reputation in the community in which they lived, and if her testimony fails to sustain such agreement, cohabitation, nor declaration, nor reputation, separate, nor combined, will prove marriage. Without an attempt and a failure to prove an agreement to become husband and wife, the other facts might become potent in establishing the marriage, but when the direct testimony as to the agreement fails the other evidence must fail also, for all the indirect or hearsay evidence is builded upon the agreement to become man and wife.’ “In affirming this Court’s decision in the Schwingle case, Chief Justice Brown, of the Texas Supreme Court, said: “ ‘A living and cohabiting together as husband and wife, or declarations of the parties that they are husband and wife, do not of themselves constitute a marriage in fact, in the absence of an agreement, express or implied. An agreement, either express or implied, coupled with a proviso or qualification, made at the time of entering into a marriage contract, that either or both of the parties to the contract could dissolve the contract at will would not in law constitute a marriage contract. * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.