28 Ark. App. 127 - Brown v. Imboden’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 2018
21 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 Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Hilburn v. First State Bank of Springdale · Bethell v. Bethell · Robinson v. Beaumont · Standridge v. Standridge
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As stated in Fox v. Fox , 247 Ark. 188 , 444 S.W.2d 865 (1969) : The theory [of estoppel] is that the marriage is not made valid by reason of the estoppel but that the estopped person may not take a position that the divorce or latter marriage was invalid. .... [T]he defendant by reasons of his conduct will not be permitted to question its validity or the divorce; so far as he is concerned, he and the plaintiff are husband and wife. 247 Ark. at 199 , 444 S.W.2d 865 . In the present case, it was the decedent who initiated the [marriage] of himself and the appellant, and it was at his insistence that she attend the divorce hearing. The evidence shows that the appellant relied, in good faith, on the validity of Bill's divorce from Brenda and relied in good faith on the validity of her marriage to Bill for almost seven years. On our de novo review, Taylor v. Hill , 10 Ark. App. 45 , 661 S.W.2d 412 (1983), we find that Bill was at least culpably negligent in not determining that his divorce decree was final before initiating his [marriage] with the appellant and that he would have been estopped to deny that the decree was final. See J.F. Hasty & Sons v. Hampton Stave Co. , 80 Ark. 405 , 97 S.W. 675 (1906). By this holding, we do not declare the validity of common-law marriage in Arkansas. A legal common-law marriage cannot be entered into in Arkansas, nor can one be created by estoppel, but equity can, and we hold that it does, under the facts in this case, require that the partie”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fares v. Fares“The theory is that the marriage is not made valid by reason of the estoppel but that the estopped person may not take a position that the divorce or latter marriage was invalid.... We think it may now be stated that the general public policy in this jurisdiction, as judicially interpreted, no longer prevents application in annulment actions of the laches and estoppel doctrines in determining the effect to be given such divorce decrees.... Rather it is that defendant by reason of his conduct will not be permitted to question its validity of the divorce; so far as he is concerned, he and plaintiff are husband and wife.... It may be noted also that we are not recognizing a common law marriage which does not exist in this state for the theory is that the marriage is not validated; it is merely that defendant cannot contest it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fares v. Fares
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.