Polak v. Polak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It has frequently been held in this state that the division of property in such cases as this is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and that its determination must prevail in the absence of mistake or some manifest error respecting the detailed facts on which it rests, or disregard of established guides, amounting to a pretty clear want of judicial discretion or judgment. Gauger v. Gauger, 1914, 157 Wis. 630 , 147 N. W. 1075 . Here the parties lived together less than a year, and the wife did not in any way assist in the accumulation of the plaintiff’s property. The defendant receives the household goods purchased at or about the time of the marriage, for which approximately $400 was paid, and receives $1,100 in cash. In addition to this attorneys’ fees of $250 for services in the trial court and $450 for services and expenses on this appeal were also allowed. The attorneys’ fees in the trial of the case and on appeal may properly be considered by the trial court in determining the amount of award to be made in a divorce action. Lewis v. Lewis, 1930, 201 Wis. 343 , 230 N. W. 77 . “In making a final division of property between the parties to a divorce action the question is ‘What is fair and equitable?” Under all the circumstances it is considered that under the decisions in Steinbach v. Steinbach, 1929, 200 Wis. 208 , 227 N. W. 879 ; Bruhn v. Bruhn, 1928, 197 Wis. 358 , 222 N. W. 242 ; Kalbakken v. Kalbakken, 1929, 199 Wis. 501 , 227 N. W. 11 , th”

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