35 Wis. 2d 401 - Davidson v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 18 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A definition of voidable and void marriage which will closely fit modern conditions is that a marriage may be considered voidable although prohibited by law when it is possible, under any circumstances, for the parties to contract the marriage, or subsequently to ratify it, while it should be considered void if it is impossible for them under the law to contract it, and if it is impossible for them subsequently by any conduct to ratify it, and if the statute expressly declares that the marriage is void.’ ””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patricia Mudlaff v. Joseph McLeod · 197 Wis. 2d 709 - Sinai Samaritan Medical Center, Inc. v. McCabe

2. ““Removal of impediments to subsequent marriage. If a person during the lifetime of a husband or wife with whom the marriage is in force, enters into a subsequent marriage contract in accordance with s. 245.16, and the parties thereto live together thereafter as husband and wife, and such subsequent marriage contract was entered into by one of the parties in good faith, in the full belief that the former husband or wife was dead, or that the former marriage had been annulled, or dissolved by a divorce, or without knowledge of such former marriage, they shall, after the impediment to their marriage has been removed by the death or divorce of the other party to such former marriage, if they continue to live together as husband and wife in good faith on the part of one of them, be held to have been legally married from and after the removal of such impediment and the issue of such subsequent marriage shall be considered as the legitimate issue of both parents.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 Wis. 2d 262 - Smith v. Smith · 60 Op. Att'y Gen. 59 - (1971)

3. ““In 3 Nelson, Divorce and Annulment (2d ed.), p. 295, sec. 31.17, it is stated: “ ‘Nor will a suit on this ground be dismissed under the doctrine of clean hands, since that doctrine may not be invoked in contravention of the public policy of the state as expressed in the statute.’ “The public policy of the state is set forth in sec. 245.001 (2), Stats., in part, as follows: “ ‘Intent. It is the intent of chs. 245 and 248 to promote the stability and best interests of marriage and the family. . . . The consequences of the marriage contract are more significant to society than those of other contracts, and the public interest must be taken into account always. . . . The impairment or dissolution of the marriage relation generally results in injury to the public wholly apart from the effect upon the parties immediately concerned.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patricia Mudlaff v. Joseph McLeod · 52 Wis. 2d 262 - Smith v. Smith