Schutterle v. Schutterle’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably Arnott v. American Oil Co. (1979), Davis v. Miller (2000)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In Re Estate of Hobelsberger · 17 Cal. 3d 342 - In Re Marriage of Dawley · Harrison v. State · Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio · Swanson v. Domning
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n antenuptial agreement will be held valid if the prospective spouse can be said to have had adequate knowledge of the nature and extent of the other party’s property, either as a result of disclosure by the other party or through the independent knowledge, however acquired, of the prospective spouse, or if the prospective spouse has been adequately provided for by the agreement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The transaction and contract here involved was in the nature of a postnuptial agreement or settlement. While it is lawful and not against public policy for husband and wife to enter into such contracts, yet they are not dealing with each other as strangers at arm’s length. The relationship of husband and wife is one of special confidence and trust, requiring the utmost good faith and frankness in their dealings with each other. A strong instinctive passion for property often leads a husband or wife into schemes for the absorption and conversion of the other’s possessions. In such transactions any concealment or misrepresentation by one party as to the value of his or her property will render such contract voidable. Transactions of this character are scrutinized by the courts with great care, to the end that no unjust advantage may •be obtained by one over the other by means of any oppression, deception, or fraud. Courts of equity will relieve against any unjust advantage procured by any such means, and less evidence is required in such cases to establish the fraud, oppression, or deception than if the parties had been dealing at arm’s length as strangers; and, where deception has been shown, fraud may be constructively presumed therefrom.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“courts have recognized that it is natural and proper for a parent to desire to provide for the children of his or her first marriage. See, e.g., Christians v. Christians, 241 Iowa 1017 , 44 N.W.2d 431 ; In re Estate of Jeurissen, [ 281 Minn. 240 , 161 N.W.2d 324 (1968)]; In re Beat’s Estate, 25 Wis.2d 315 , 130 N.W.2d 739 (post-nuptial agreement).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.