Lawrence v. Lawrence’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Friezo v. Friezo · Scherer v. Scherer · Williams v. State · Randolph v. Randolph · Mallen v. Mallen
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) the antenuptial agreement was not the result of fraud, duress, mistake, misrepresentation, or nondisclosure of material facts; (2) the agreement is not unconscionable; and (3) taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, including changes beyond the parties' contemplation when the agreement was executed, enforcement of the antenuptial agreement would be neither unfair nor unreasonable. 7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“show both that there was a full and fair disclosure of the assets of the parties prior to the execution of the antenuptial agreement, and that the party opposing enforcement entered into the agreement freely, voluntarily, and with full understanding of its terms after being offered the opportunity to consult with independent counsel.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“2 Consequently, we evaluate a trial court's ruling regarding the enforceability of an antenuptial agreement under”
2 later decisions 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.