Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 26 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Kauffman v. Kauffman, 93 Cal.App.2d 808 , 210 P.2d 29, 33 , Gertrude A. Kauffman and her husband, Barton H. Kauffman, entered into a separation agreement and property settlement on 27 August 1941. It was agreed between the parties that the wife should remain the beneficiary in the husband's War Risk Insurance policy, but if they should be divorced it was agreed that their two children should be named beneficiaries. Gertrude A. Kauffman secured a final divorce decree from Barton H. Kauffman on 20 October 1942. The children were named beneficiaries in the insurance policy as provided in the separation agreement. However, on 20 November 1942, Barton H. Kauffman married Angie F. Kauffman and on 20 October 1947 the insured changed the beneficiary in his policy to his second wife. The insured died on 28 February 1948. An action was instituted to impress a trust upon the proceeds of the policy. The Court held: `We conclude that the property settlement agreement was an assignment of the proceeds of the policy in question, Chilwell v. Chilwell, 40 Cal.App.2d 550, 553 , 105 P.2d 122 ; that such an assignment is prohibited by the terms of the Federal Statute, s 454a, supra (now 38 U.S.C.A. s 3101 ), and is therefore not enforceable against the defendant beneficiary. Lewis v. United States, 3 Cir., 56 F.2d 563 ; Von Der Lippi-Lipski v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 202 , 4 F.2d 168 ; Bradley v. United States, 10 Cir., 143 F.2d 573 ; Tompkins v. Tompkins, 132 N.J.L. 217 , 38 A.2d 890 ; Ya”

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

2. ““We are of the opinion that the decision below was incorrect. The National Service Life Insurance Act is the congressional mode of affording a uniform and comprehensive system of life insurance for members and veterans of the armed forces of the United States. A liberal policy toward the serviceman and his named beneficiary is everywhere evident in the comprehensive statutory plan. Premiums are very low and are waived during the insured’s disability; costs of the administration are borne by the United States; liabilities may be discharged out of congressional appropriations. “The controlling section of the Act provides that the insured ‘shall have the right to designate the beneficiary or beneficiaries of the insurance [within a designated class], * * * and shall * * * at all times have the right to change the beneficiary or beneficiaries * * 38 U.S.C. § 802 (g) 3 Thus Congress has spoken with force and clarity in directing that the proceeds belong to the named beneficiary and no other. Pursuant to the congressional command, the Government contracted to pay the insurance to the insured’s choice. He chose his mother. It is plain to us that the judgment of the lower court, as to one-half of the proceeds, substitutes the widow for the mother, who was the beneficiary Congress directed shall receive the insurance money. We do not share appellee’s discovery of congressional purpose that widows in community property states participate in the payments under the policy, contrary to th”

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