Turner v. Ewald’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 1976 · most notably Scanlon v. Scanlon (1955), Wides v. Wides (1945)
3 federal appellate · 20 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 Blair v. Commissioner · Kelly v. Kelly · H. A. Keach v. Roberta Keach · Renick v. Renick · Boehmer v. Boehmer
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is conflict in the authorities as to whether an agreement between a husband and wife, pending divorce, and incorporated in a divorce decree renders the decree immune from subsequent modification where the agreement merely fixes the amount of the allowance to the wife for maintenance and support, but it is well settled in this jurisdiction that a decree embodying an agreement of the parties, which has the effect of a valid property settlement contract, cannot be modified.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Richey v. Richey““In this jurisdiction a lump-sum award in lieu of a periodical allowance is favored where the husband owns sufficient property to permit such a settlement of alimony claims fairly to both parties.*- * * “The proportion of the husband’s estate which should be awarded the wife, where an allowance in gross is made, is not determined by any hard and fast rule, but the amount allowed is controlled by the facts and circumstances of the particular case * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simpson v. Simpson““This agreement is in full settlement, satisfaction and compromise of any and all claims which either Mr. or Mrs. Ewald may hold against the other; and in the event of the death of either after this Agreement becomes operative, and while they are still husband and wife, the one surviving hereby waives all claims to curtesy, dower, homestead or distributable share in either the real or personal estate owned by the other.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Richey v. Richey
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.