Dillion v. Dillion’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have seen that according to the late English' dicta an insane person cannot maintain a suit to dissolve his marriage. This proposition is sustained by reasons which do not apply to the case of an insane defendant. It is a familiar doctrine that, though the law favors marriage, no one is compelled into matrimony by the law. The marital status can be assumed only of free choice, so that, however much a marriage may be for the advantage of an insane person, he is not capable of entering into it by himself, by guardian or by next friend. Much more as the law looks on divorce with disfavor, will it refuse a dissolution .of the marriage to a party who does not consent to it. Consequently, the Georgia court held that an action for a divorce a vinculo cannot be maintained by prochein ami in the name of a lunatic wife. The right to bring the suit is strictly personal and under the exclusive volition and control of the injured party. Said Harris, J.: ‘ If a guardian or next friend has the power insisted upon, we desire to learn whence it is derived. It certainly is not given by express provision of law, nor can it legitimately be deduced from the personal custody of the ward, which imposes certain duties on the guardian which he must perform. . . . Whether, after gross and repeated infidelities (by the husband), the wife will continue to regard him as her husband, and live with him as his wife, is for her decision only. Death only can dissolve the marriage relation without her cons”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cabán v. Ferrer

2. ““According to the prevailing view in this country a suit for divorce is regarded as so strictly personal and volitional that it cannot be maintained at the pleasure of a guardian or committee of an insane spouse, even though the result is to render the marriage indissoluble by or on behalf of the insane party.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cabán v. Ferrer

3. ““There is authority, especially in England, for the position that a suit for a divorce may be brought or continued by the guardian or committee of an insane spouse on his or her behalf.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cabán v. Ferrer