Brooks v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The obligation for the support of a minor child is no longer primarily charged upon the father, but father and mother are equally and jointly charged with the child’s care, nurture, welfare, education, and support. This statutory provision was considered by the court in Brooks v. Brooks, 166 Tenn. 255 , 61 S. W. (2d) 654 . In that case it was said: ‘ ‘ ‘ The obligation previously resting upon the father to maintain and support his minor children cannot be said to have been destroyed by this statute. That obligation was to provide for the child “in a manner commensurate with his means and station in life." Evans v. Evans, supra [ 125 Tenn. 112 , 140 S. W. 745 , 747, Ann. Cas. 1913 C, 294]. The obligation cast upon the mother by the statute must be measured by the same varying and relative standard. It .is obvious, therefore, that tbe “equal and joint” obligation imposed upon both parents cannot be divided between them by arbitrary or mathematical measure. The obligation of both to provide a support for their child is equal, and joint, in so far as the child is concerned, but a controversy between the parents, as to the proper contribution of each, seems to us to be determinable only by equitable principles and rules, due regard to the condition and means of.each.’ ” (Emphasis ours.) Rose Funeral Home, Inc. v. Julian, 176 Tenn. 534, 539 , 144 S. W. (2d) 755, 757 , 131 A. L. R. 858.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 29 Tenn. App. 124 - Atchley v. Atchley

2. ““The obligation previously resting upon the father [at common law] to maintain and support his minor children cannot be said to have been destroyed by this statute. That obligation was to provide for the child ‘in a manner commensurate with his means and station in life.’ ... The obligation cast upon the mother by the statute must be measured by the same varying and relative standard.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Gore

3. “Fathers and mothers are joint natural guardians of their minor children, and they are equally and jointly charged with their care, nurture, welfare, education and support, and also with the care, management and expenditure of their estates. Fathers and mothers have equal powers, rights and duties with respect to the custody of their minor child or children....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bordis