Burger v. Burger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"We have held that even in situations where the putative wife was responsible for the invalidity of the union, she would still be entitled to temporary alimony and suit money to enable her to defend herself or otherwise participate in the litigation. Section 65.07, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Therry v. Therry, 117 Fla. 453 , 158 So. 120 ; Courtney v. Courtney, 108 Fla. 276 , 146 So. 229 . However, permanent alimony and fees in addition to those allowed pendente lite have been denied to a wife found guilty of a so-called `Ground Nine' basis for the `divorce.' Therry v. Therry, supra. In Florida, alimony is a matter of equitable cognizance which rests in the sound discretion of the chancellor in the light of the facts of a particular case. Gill v. Gill, 107 Fla. 588 , 145 So. 758 ; Prine v. Prine, 36 Fla. 676 , 18 So. 781 , 34 L.R.A. 87 . In view of this rule, when the putative wife is the wrongdoer, or as here, when she is equally responsible with the putative husband in creating the situation, she is not entitled to permanent alimony or attorneys' fees other than those allowed pendente lite. When a wife is an innocent victim of the husband's wrong, then the court may allow permanent alimony and attorneys' fees on equitable principles as well as under Section 65.08, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Young v. Young, supra. "Our holdings here regarding alimony and suit money are exceptions to the general rule that ordinarily to support these allowances, it is necessary to prove the existenc”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 648 So. 2d 317 - Gilvary v. Gilvary · 629 So. 2d 176 - Kindle v. Kindle

2. “(9) That either party had a husband or wife living at the time of the marriage sought to be annulled.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. Wright · 629 So. 2d 176 - Kindle v. Kindle

3. ““In a proceeding pursuant to section 65.04(9), supra, the chancellor also has the power to resolve problems incident to the custody and maintenance of children born of the ‘marriage’. Todd v. Todd, 151 Fla. 131 , 9 So.2d 279 ; Whitfield v. Whitfield, Fla. App., 161 So.2d 256 . Such children are innocent victims of the situation. They should not be deprived of the right to be supported merely because the parents have created the invalidating circumstances. The chancellor, therefore, ruled correctly in awarding a sum for the maintenance of the children. He also had the jurisdiction to dispose of the matter of custody as he did.””

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