McBride v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 24 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The point here, however, is that if future wages of an ex-husband may be subjected to the support of an ex-wife then the circuit has been completed and permanent alimony becomes an established reality despite our statutes and many court decisions to the contrary. “Not believing that permanent alimony can or should be engrafted upon our marital system by such backdoor reasoning we decline to hold that future wages are property or ‘the estate of the parties’ within the meaning of Article 4638, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. “Appellee stresses the voluntary nature of the agreement as making it immune from the statutory bar of permanent alimony. “There are at least two answers to this argument. “First and foremost is that the Court has no jurisdiction and is without authority to grant permanent alimony. Art. 4637, V.A.C.S., Pape v. Pape, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 99 , 35 S.W. 479 (San Antonio, writ dism.), Ex parte Ellis, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 539 , 40 S.W. 275 ; Boyd v. Boyd, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 200 , 54 S.W. 380 ; Bond v. Bond, 41 Tex.Civ.App. 129 , 90 S.W. 1128 ; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 120 Tex. 491 , 40 S.W.2d 46 , 75 A.L.R. 1305 ; Ex parte Guinn, 121 Tex. 66 , 41 S.W.2d 219 ; Jinks v. Jinks, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 816 (Texarkana); 27A C.J.S. Divorce §: 203, pp. 878, 884; 15 Tex.Jur. p. 649. “Jurisdiction of a court has been defined as follows: , “ ‘The jurisdiction of the court means the power or authority which is conferred upon a court, by the constitution and laws, to hear and determine causes betwe”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McElreath v. McElreath · Graham v. Graham

2. “"First and foremost is that the Court has no jurisdiction and is without authority to grant permanent alimony. Art. 4637, V.A.C.S., Pape v. Pape, 13 Tex.Civ.App. 99 , 35 S.W. 479 (San Antonio, writ dism.), Ex parte Ellis, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 539 , 40 S.W. 275 ; Boyd v. Boyd, 22 Tex.Civ.App. 200 , 54 S.W. 380 ; Bond v. Bond, 41 Tex.Civ.App. 129 , 90 S.W. 1128 ; Cunningham v. Cunningham, 120 Tex. 491 , 40 S.W.2d 46 , 75 A.L.R. 1305 ; Ex parte Guinn, 121 Tex. 66 , 41 S.W.2d 219 ; Jinks v. Jinks, Tex.Civ.App., 205 S.W.2d 816 (Texarkana); 27 C.J.S., Divorce, § 202, p. 884, 15 Tex.Jur. p. 649. * * * * * * "Secondly, the award of permanent alimony is against the public policy of this State. We quote from Cunningham v. Cunningham, supra [ 120 Tex. 491 , 40 S.W.2d 46 ]: "`It thus appears that it was originally the public policy of the Republic to confer authority on the district court to compel either spouse to provide the other with proper maintenance. "`After a brief time, the Congress enacted a change in the public policy of the Republic, disclosed by sections 8, 6, 13 and 4 of the Act of January 6, 1841, which have been continuously reenacted in substance, and are now embodied in articles 4637, 4636, 4639, and 4638 [V.A.C.S.]'"”

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

3. ““This latter provision, which we hold to be in the nature of permanent alimony, has no connection with, is not payable from and is not referable to any property which either spouse may have owned or claimed. Nor does it purport to be for the support, maintenance and education of the son. It is by its own unmistakable language an agreement to support and maintain a divorced wife from the future earnings of a divorced husband.””

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