159 Ind. App. 231 - Weiss v. Weiss’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a well-settled rule that the question of the amount of alimony to be decreed in any case is a matter of judicial discretion within the province of the trial court. This court will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion unless it is apparent that the discretion has been abused. * * * “There are no hard and .binding rules, nor is there any single test, which may be followed for the guidance of the court in its award of the sum which the husband shall pay to his wife whom he has injured by reason of the wrongs and grievances of which she had complained and which she has sustained by the evidence upon trial. * * * However, in determining the amount of alimony in a particular case, our courts have stated' that certain factors must be investigated and considered. They are (1) the existing property rights of the parties, * * * (2) the amount of property owned and held by the husband and the source from which it came, * * * (3) the financial condition and income of the parties and the ability of the husband to earn money, * * * (4) whether or not the .wife by her industry and economy has contributed to the accumulation of the husband’s property, * * * (5) the separate estate of the wife, * * * .” [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 160 Ind. App. 653 - Terry v. Terry

2. “... (1) the existing property rights of the parties, Shula v. Shula (1956), 235 Ind. 210 , 132 N.E.2d 612 ; Ferguson v. Ferguson (1955), 125 Ind. App. 596 , 125 N.E.2d 816 ; (2) the amount of property owned and held by the husband and the source from which it came, Poppe v. Poppe (.1944), 114 Ind. App. 348 , 52 N.E.2d 508 ; McHie v. McHie (1939), 106 Ind. App. 152 , 16 N.E.2d 987 ; (3) the financial condition and income, of the parties and the ability of the husband to earn money, Logan v. Logan (1883), 90 Ind. 107 ; Poppe v. Poppe, supra; Glick v. Glick (1927), 86 Ind. App. 593 , 159 N.E. 33 ; Cornwell v. Cornwell (1940), 108 Ind. App. 350 , 29 N.E.2d 317 ; Hedrick v. Hedrick (1891), 128 Ind. 522 , 26 N.E. 768 ; (4) whether or not the wife by her industry and economy have contributed to the accumulation of the husband’s property, Yost v. Yost [ 141 Ind. 584 , 41 N.E. 11 ], supra; (5) the separate estate of the wife, Stultz v. Stultz (1886), 107 Ind. 400 , 8 N.E. 238 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reed v. Reed

3. ““To be an abuse of discretion, the judgment complained of must be one which is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.’ McFarlan v. Fowler Bank City Trust Co. (1938), 214 Ind. 10, 14 , 12 N.E.2d 752, 754 . See also: Shaw v. Shaw 159 Ind. App. 33 (1973), 304 N.E.2d 536 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 Ind. App. 422 - Hibbard v. Hibbard