236 Mo. App. 855 - Woods v. Woods’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 24 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. ““In addition to the foregoing, was the court in hearing the motion to quash the-execution justified in its finding that the judgment for temporary alimony terminated on the date of the decree upon the merits of the case? This is the principal question that is presented in the appeal. The-conclusion has been reached that the finding was justified and that the contention-of appellant that the initial allowance for temporary alimony was an effective, continuing judgment after the decree of divorce in favor of the husband cannot be-sustained. An allowance of alimony 'pending the suit for divorce’ as provided in Sec.. 1519, RSMo 1939 [V.A.M.S. § 452.070], is in its very nature temporary in character and is properly classified as interlocutory and terminable when the case is heard upon its merits. Such is the effect of the ruling of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the-case of Creasey v. Creasey, 175 Mo.App. 237, 242 , 157 S.W. 862 , and the ruling of this court in the case of Coons v. Coons, Mo.App., 236 S.W. 364 , 365, wherein it is- said that 'the final decree of divorce in favor of the husband vacated the former order for payment of temporary alimony, expense money, and attorney’s fees in the absence of an agreement by the parties that it be continued.’ ””

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