Marks v. Marks’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Sullivan v. Quist (1993), 100 N.C. App. 138 - Hayes v. Hayes (1990)
36 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 Williams v. Williams · Beall v. Beall · Bunn v. Bunn · White v. White · Sides v. Duke University
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he `overriding principle' in cases determining the correctness of alimony is `fairness to all parties.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(a) Alimony shall be in such amount as the circumstances render necessary, having due regard to the estates, earnings, earning capacity, condition, accustomed standard of living of the parties, and other facts of the particular case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“To resolve the question of whether an agreement is integrated or non-integrated, we look to the intention of the parties. If the agreement contains an unequivocal clause regarding integration or if it contains unequivocal integration language, then this clause or language controls. In the absence of an integration clause and of integration language, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the parties’ intent. (Emphasis added.) At the hearing, there is a presumption that the provisions of the agreement are separable. The effect of this presumption is to place the burden of proof .... on the party claiming that the agreement is integrated. In order to prevail, the party claiming the agreement is integrated must rebut the presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the parties intended an integrated agreement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lemons v. Lemons
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.