Gebhard v. Gebhard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““While the wife in her testimony admitted that she knew that the profit from the stock trades were used for family support, nonetheless, the husband had agreed to return the stock to her. In fact, the husband admitted on cross-examination that he had agreed to return the stock account to the wife ‘at any time she wanted.’ While it is true that the husband used the income from the short-term stock trading to help support the family, the establishment of the account was more of a contribution to his ‘on the job training’ and a help towards supporting the family than a gift to him. In such a situation the stocks representing the jointly held account were not in actuality a joint asset of the parties as the husband had never contributed anything toward the purchase of the securities nor had the wife ever made a gift to him of any interest in the securities.” Id. at 45 .”

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

2. ““On the evidence of this case there is no basis for a conclusion other than that title to these securities was in the registered owner, the husband. See Brewster v. Brewster, 207 Md. 193, 202 , 114 A. 2d 53 (1955) and Newmeyer v. Newmeyer, 216 Md. 431, 435 , 140 A. 2d 892 (1958). There was not the slightest evidence of ownership by the wife, other than the community property theory urged by her, upon which the chancellor could determine ownership or require a division under Art. 16, § 29. There was no evidence upon which an award could be made under § 25, since the wife brought no property or estate to the marriage. No authority exists for a division between parties as was here done because of the work efforts of the parties. There being no legal basis upon which the chancellor could award a part of the securities to the wife, his action was clearly erroneous.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 16 Md. App. 17 - Woodall v. Woodall

3. ““... [I]n all cases where a divorce is decreed, the court passing the same shall have full power to award to the wife such property or estate as she had when married, or the value of the same, or of such part thereof as may have been sold or converted by the husband, having regard to the circumstances of the husband at the time of the divorce, or such part of any such property as the court may deem reasonable ...”.”

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