Beavers v. Beavers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The husband testified that he was afraid of the wife ‘to a degree * * * I don’t feel as though I am safe around her. These tantrums can come up any moment.’ The testimony, however, established that he remained in the marital home until January, 1968, and, indeed, that he drove with his wife to the hospital to see their granddaughter shortly before he left. If there were any fear of his wife, it was quite mild inasmuch as she would have had a golden opportunity to have seriously injured or even have killed him while she drove the automobile to the hospital. In our opinion, the actions of the husband show that he did not really fear for his life and safety and had no legal grounds for any such fear.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 Md. App. 481 - Dupree v. Dupree

2. ““ ‘Even though the cruelty required in a constructive desertion case may be less than a case wherein an a mensa decree is sought on the grounds of cruelty, yet the objectionable conduct still must be such as to render continuation of the marital relationship impossible, if the complaining spouse is to preserve his or her health, safety or self-respect. Eberwein, supra. Obviously, for such a situation to exist, there must be a pattern of persistent conduct which is detrimental to the safety or health of the complaining spouse, or so demeaning to his or her self-respect as to be intolerable. * * *’ ” ( 251 Md. at 742 , 248 A. 2d at 874 )”

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

3. ““The wife’s abusive language in regard to the husband’s mother was not made publicly or even to the mother-in-law directly, the mother-in-law testifying that the wife had called her ‘stupid, and dumb and naive many and many a time.’ The abusive language about the members of the husband’s family was generally made to the husband or members of the family — cf Li v. Li, [supra] — and in any event did not charge the husband with infidelity or other ■ conduct demeaning to his self-respect.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 22 Md. App. 475 - Ches v. Ches