Decker v. Decker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 17 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The rule is too well settled, even to admit of argument, that consideration in fact bargained for is not required to be adequate in the sense of equality in value. Corbin on Contracts , § 127. The mere inadequacy, alone, is never sufficient to vitiate a contract or conveyance otherwise valid, and the courts are not disposed to enter upon nice calculations to strike a balance on the one side or the other. Norrell v. Thompson , 252 Ala. 603 , 42 So.2d 461 , 462 . Absolute equality is not to be hoped for, and is seldom attained in men's dealings one with the other. Nor is consideration to be measured in terms of dollars and cents alone; convenience, avoidance of troublesome details and efforts are proper elements. Decker v. Decker , 253 Ala. 345 , 44 So.2d 435 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McGuffie v. Mead Corp. · 514 So. 2d 965 - Grimes v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co.

2. ““It is a settled rule that after the death of the husband and before assignment, while dower is not an interest or estate in realty, it is assignable by way of extinguishing release to the heirs or terre-tenants. — American Equitable Assurance Co. of New York v. Powderly Coal & Lumber Co., 221 Ala. 280 (4), 128 So. 225 ; Francis v. Sandlin, 150 Ala. 583 , 43 So. 829 . “And though the widow’s right of dower, until assigned, is an equity of which a court of law does not take cognizance, yet ‘on the principle that an assignment of a right of action, though not assignable at law, will be protected in equity, a court of equity will uphold the widow’s alienation of her dower interest to a stranger, and protect the rights of the alienee, there being a valuable consideration paid, and the absence of fraud, imposition or undue advantage.’ Wilkinson v. Brandon, 92 Ala. 530 , 9 So. 187 , 188; Wilson v. Roebuck, 180 Ala. 288 , 60 So. 870 ; Lester v. Stroud, 212 Ala. 635 , 103 So. 692 ." 253 Ala. 348 , 44 So.2d 437 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Petcher v. Rounsaville

3. ““So, treating the agreement as an assignment or relinquishment of her dower right to the heirs, its validity is to be tested by its substance rather than its form. That is to say, it will be upheld, in equity, if it is supported by a valuable consideration and was not the result of fraud, imposition, or undue advantage perpetrated in its procurement.... In determination of these questions we look to the instrument itself and to the situation of the respective parties as it appears from the evidence.” 253 Ala. at 348-49 , 44 So.2d at 437 . (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Garrard v. Lang