Oxley v. Oxley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

35 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * When title to real estate is taken jointly in the names of husband and wife, the husband furnishing all the consideration, it is well settled that the inclusion of the wife is supported by no consideration except her faithful observance of the marriage vows as long as the marital status subsists. Her promise to do so is an implied covenant in the deed, and a subsequent wrongful breach of the vows causes a failure of the continuing consideration and works a forfeiture of the property right conferred on her by the deed. This principle, which was enunciated by this court in Moore v. Moore, 51 App.D.C. 304 , 278 F. 1017 , and Osborne v. Osborne, 59 App.D.C. 288 , 40 F.2d 800 , was not changed by the enactment of Title 16, § 409, of the District of Columbia Code (1940), as was specifically pointed out in Richardson v. Richardson, 72 App.D.C. 67 , 112 F.2d 19 . There we observed that the code provision adopted in 1935 merely worked a pro cedural change. While the District Court has the right and duty under the statute, as indeed it had even before its enactment, to exercise a sound judicial discretion in adjusting the property rights of the parties, it is an abuse of discretion to fail to award to the husband the ownership of property when, as here, the wife furnished no part of the money necessary to acquire the property and has completely forfeited her interest in it by her failure to live up to the marriage covenants.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schultze v. Schultze · Marie Schultze v. George H. Schultze

2. ““Although the domicile of a wife ordinarily follows that of her husband, it is not so in this case. When Oxley left North Carolina in 1935, it was by agreement that his wife remained there and so her domicile remained in that state, despite the fact that he established a new domicile for himself in the District of Columbia.” Oxley v. Oxley, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 346 , 159 F.2d 10 , 11 (1946) (Footnote omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Napletana v. Hillsdale College