Simonds v. Simonds’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1984
22 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 Meares v. Meares · Cochrane v. Cochrane · Allen v. Allen, Barber v. Barber · Machado v. Machado · Mincey v. Mincey
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The causes for which separate maintenance may be granted are not confined to those which constitute grounds for divorce. Accordingly, a court may decree such maintenance although a divorce is denied. Nelson on Divorce and Annulment, 2nd Edition, Vol. 3, Sections 32.10 and 32.12; Sales v. Sales , 222 Ky. 175 , 300 S.W. 354 ; Bradford v. Bradford , 296 Mass. 187 , 4 N.E. (2d) 1005; Cochrane v. Cochrane , 303 Mass. 467 , 22 N.E. (2d) 6, 138 A.L.R. 341 . In actions for divorce, we are limited by the terms of the Constitution. There is no statute in this state undertaking to fix the grounds for separate maintenance and support. This is left to the broad discretion of a court of equity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simonds v. Simonds“Based upon the authorities heretofore cited and referred to, in order that a divorce may be granted on the ground of habitual drunkenness, such must exist at or near the time of the filing of the action for a divorce. It being admitted that the respondent had totally abstained from the use of alcohol in any manner for approximately a year after the separation of the appellant and respondent, the condition of habitual drunkenness did not exist at or near the time of the filing of this action. The Trial Judge properly held that a divorce could not be granted on the ground of habitual drunkenness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simonds v. Simonds“A review of the exceptions filed to the Master's Report show that nine of such exceptions had to do with the recommendations made by the Master as to alimony and attorney's fees. The order of the Trial Judge, as is above stated, did not pass upon these exceptions nor did he refuse to pass thereon. This being the situation, this court is powerless to make a separate maintenance award or to allow attorney's fees. If the appellant is entitled to such an award, the same can be made, in this action, by the Common Pleas Court of Charleston County.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simonds v. Simonds
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.