Steiner v. Steiner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Without question [Mrs.] Steiner has a separate estate. Has she an estate sufficient for her maintenance? What is the proper construction to be placed on the words ‘insufficient for her maintenance’? ‘We cannot agree with the interpretation of [Mr. Steiner]. Tendencies of evidence in this case show that such estate as [Mrs. Steiner] may own is an unpro ductive estate at this time. It does not produce an income on which she can-live and certainly does not produce an income on which she can live in the manner to which she has been accustomed. If an estate produces no income or an income on which the wife cannot subsist in the manner to which she is accustomed, then wé consider that her separate estate is insufficient for her maintenance. Under the circumstances here shown a wife should not be deprived of alimony under the foregoing statute because by selling the corpus of her estate she may thereby maintain herself. The statute does not contemplate that a wife shall take her jewels for example and sell or pawn them in order to live. This would be a harsh interpretation of the statute with which we cannot agree. “We are impressed with the construction placed on the Kentucky statute by the courts of that state. The statute is that, ‘If the wife does not have sufficient estate of her own she may, on a divorce obtained by her, have such allowance out of [the estate] of her husband as the court considers equitable’. [Ky.Rev. Stat.] 403.060. The court said: ‘The interpretation of “su”

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

2. ““We have carefully considered the allowance of counsel fees for services in the trial court. * * * It is evident that considerable time' and effort has been expended in the preparation and conduct of the case. Qualified and competent members of the Birmingham Bar testified that the services were worth not less than $10,000 nor more than $15,000 under the circumstances of the case. No one testified to the contrary. The court no doubt took all this in consideration in connection with the situation between the parties and especially the value of such services- in its jurisdiction. Such allowance rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court which we are not willing to say has been abused. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. Keith

3. ““ . . . it is proper to consider the earning ability of the parties, their probable future prospects, their age, health and station in life, duration of the marriage and the conduct of the parties with reference to the cause of divorce. Garlington v. Garlington, 246 Ala. 665, 666 , 22 So.2d 89 ; Ortman v. Ortman, 203 Ala. 167 , 82 So. 417 .””

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