Schmelzel v. Schmelzel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 59 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the case at bar the final judgment of separation did not terminate the separation agreement, but as in the case of Goldman v. Goldman, 282 N.Y. 296 , 26 N.E.2d 265, 269 , the judgment entered incorporated the terms of the separation agreement, which included fixing the amount of alimony for the support of the wife. Such incorporation was made pursuant to an express provision of the separation agreement. In such event, as the court pointed out in the Goldman case, `the direction of the court that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a sum less than he agreed to pay does not relieve the defendant of any contractual obligation' and `the plaintiff may still resort to the usual remedies for breach of a contractual obligation if there has been such a breach,' since `so long as the contract remains unimpeached, the court will not compel the husband to pay to the wife for her support a sum greater than the wife agreed to accept, at least where such sum is not plainly insufficient.' Goldman v. Goldman, supra, 282 N.Y. at pages 301, 305, 26 N.E.2d at page 267 . The decision in the Goldman case reaffirmed the rule as announced in the cases of Galusha v. Galusha, 116 N.Y. 635 , 22 N.E. 1114 , 6 L.R.A. 487 , 15 Am.St.Rep. 453 ; Id., 138 N.Y. 272, 274 , 33 N.E. 1062 , that a decree or a subsequent order in a matrimonial action does not destroy the agreement or deprive the parties of their rights thereunder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howland v. Stitzer