Nicholas v. Nicholas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 75 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In addition to the causes of action which survive at common law, causes of action for mesne profits, or for an injury to the person, or to real or personal estate, or for any deceit or fraud, or for death by wrongful act or omission, shall also survive; and the action may be brought notwithstanding the death of the person entitled or liable to the same.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 40 Kan. App. 2d 281 - Jeanes v. Bank of America, N.A. · Valadez v. Emmis Communications

2. “"Within the context of estate planning, other courts have recognized that the purpose of statutes such as K.S.A.2002 Supp. 60-1607(a)(1) is not to `freeze each party's estate plan as of the date of the filing' of the divorce action, rather it `is to forbid actions by either party that would dissipate the property of the marital estate or place it beyond the court's adjudicatory power in the dissolution proceeding.' Lonergan v. Strom, 145 Ariz. 195, 200 , 700 P.2d 893 (Ct.App. 1985). See Benson v. District Court, 57 Idaho 85, 91-92 , 62 P.2d 108 (1936); Girardi v. Girardi, 140 A.D.2d 486, 487 , 528 N.Y.S.2d 397 (1988); Lindsey v. Lindsey, 342 Pa.Super. 72, 76 , 492 A.2d 396 (1985); Dyer v. Dyer, 87 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex.Civ.App.1935); In re Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 976 (Utah 1996). "In this case, the restraining order did not limit the use or control of the property in question, at least in a way which affects the issues in this case. Thus, the question is whether [the husband]'s actions disposed of the property. An appropriate test for this determination is that recognized in the above-cited cases: whether the action affected the value of the marital estate or placed the property outside the adjudicatory power of the court. [The husband]'s action did not change the value of the marital estate and did not do anything that would prevent the court from having power over the property for purposes of property division. "[The wife] . . . had no vested interest in the insurance p”

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

3. “[ejxcept for the appropriation of one’s name or likeness, an action for invasion of privacy can be maintained only by a living individual whose privacy is invaded. Comment: a. The right protected by the action for invasion of privacy is a personal right, peculiar to the individual whose privacy is invaded. The cause of action is not assignable, and it cannot be maintained by other persons such as members of the individual’s family, unless their own privacy is invaded along with his. The only exception to this rule involves the appropriation to the defendant’s own use of another’s name or likeness. (See § 652C, particularly Comment a). b. In the absence of statute, the action for the invasion of privacy cannot be maintained after the death of the individual whose privacy is invaded. In a few states particular statutes permit the survival of an action for invasion of privacy that has occurred before death. In a smaller number of states there is statutory authorization for an action on the Impart of surviving relatives for invasion of the privacy of one who is already deceased, with the invasion occurring after his death. Since appropriation of name or likeness is similar to impairment of a property right and involves an aspect of unjust enrichment of the defendants or his estate, survival rights may be held to exist following the death of either party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cannady v. St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center