Walno v. Walno’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 1964 · most notably Preston v. Preston (1964), Goetz v. Goetz (1957)
32 state decisions
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 Gates v. Gates · Mann v. Mann · Miller v. Miller · Newton v. Newton · Moore v. Connelly
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . If that (referring to a similar contention) were an unvarying standard, there would be no room for exercise of discretion by the trial court. In making the argument appellant overlooks the fact that in each case relied upon by her the divorce was granted by reason of the fault of the husband, while in the instant case the trial court found the parties to be in equal wrong. The Mann case, supra, makes it clear that the trial court is to take into con sideration the conduct of the parties, the needs of the wife, the earning capacity of the husband, the amount of property and how and when it was acquired. We cannot agree with appellant’s contention that the trial court entertained the view that it could not take into consideration the farm which appellee received from his father. . . .” (p. 625.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. DeWitt v. DeWitt““The division of property between the parties in an action for divorce rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. The discretion is a judicial and not an arbitrary one, and if under the circumstances of the particular case the division is clearly unreasonable, unjust and inadequate, it will be corrected on appeal. “A division of property made by the trial court in a divorce action will not be disturbed unless it is clearly shown that there was an abuse of discretion.” (Syl. fill 2, 3.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harris v. Harris““There is no fixed rule for determining what proportion of a husband’s es-state should be allowed to the wife as alimony, but there are many cases in which one-half of the estate was deemed a proper allowance.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stanton v. Stanton
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.