Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[i]n addressing whether a husband and wife have lived “separate and apart,” this Court has repeatedly held that these words require “both a physical separation and an intention on the part of at least one of the parties to cease the matrimonial cohabitation.” Earles v. Earles, 29 N.C. App. 348, 349 , 224 S.E.2d 284, 286 (1976). See also Myers v. Myers, 62 N.C. App. 291, 294 , 302 S.E.2d 476, 479 (1983); Daniel v. Daniel, 132 N.C. App. 217, 219 , 510 S.E.2d 689, 690 (1999). Our courts have never required that the remaining party must also have knowledge of the other party’s intent to cease cohabitation; therefore, we decline to do so now, especially when there is overwhelming evidence that all the requirements of Section 50-6 were met.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 215 N.C. App. 495 - Romulus v. Romulus