Schneider v. Schneider’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 69 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In California, as in Texas, the common law is the general rule of decision, but in both states the law regulating the mutual property rights of married persons is radically different from that law; and while we do not wish to be understood as saying that the rules of the common law as to husband and wife apply to no case under our system, yet we agree with the Texas courts that the common-law rule as to the con sequences of a void marriage upon the mutual property rights of the parties to it is inapplicable where the community property regime prevails. This conclusion is dictated by simple justice, for where persons domiciled in speh a jurisdiction, believing themselves to be lawfully married to each other, acquire property as the result of their joint efforts, they have impliedly adopted, as is said in the Texas ease cited, the rule of an equal division of their acquisitions, and the expecta tion of such a division should not be defeated in the ease of innocent persons.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Robbins v. United States

2. ““A void marriage confers no rights upon either of the parties to it in respect to the property of the other such as would be conferred by a valid marriage.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 58 F. Supp. 67 - Sanders v. Altmeyer