Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1987
8 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 Hedtke v. Hedtke · 24 Tex. Civ. App. 150 - Moor v. Moor · Scannell v. Scannell · Clark v. Clark · Hamm v. Hamm
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On a certified question in the case of Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404 , 248 S.W. 21, 23 , in discussing the power vested by statute in the trial court, Judge Greenwood, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: ‘The court pornouncing a decree of divorce is invested with wide discretion in disposing of any and all property of the parties, separate or community, and * * * its action, in the exercise of such discretion should be corrected on appeal only where an abuse of discretion is shown in that the disposition made of some property is manifestly unjust and unfair.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Klein v. Klein
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.