Malcolm v. Malcolm’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Pesicka v. Pesicka (2000), American State Bank v. Adkins (1990)
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 102 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 Huffman v. Shevlin · Johnson v. Johnson · Jones v. American Oil Company · Rousseau v. Gesinger · City of Sioux Falls v. Henry Carlson Co.
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Another test to be applied in determining the meaning of a contract is the construction actually placed on the contract by the parties as evidenced by their subsequent behavior. If the intention of the parties is not clear from the writing, then it is necessary and proper for the court to consider all the circumstances surrounding the execution of the writing and the subsequent acts of the parties. The construction given by the parties themselves to the contract as shown by their acts, if reasonable, will be accorded great weight and usually will be adopted by the court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in holding that the January 12,1982, agreement was intended by the parties to fix the amount of child support. Accordingly, we reverse the order inasmuch as it attempted to modify the child support portion of the divorce decree in accordance with the trial court’s interpretation of the January 1982 agreement. This does not mean, however, that upon remand [wife] should be entitled to enforce the January 12, 1982, agreement in the divorce action by means of a contempt citation. As pointed out above, the property rights of the parties were fixed by the terms of the 1979 divorce decree. Thereafter, any modification of those rights could only occur by way of bilateral agreement of the parties as manifested by a valid contractual agreement. Inasmuch as we have interpreted the January 12, 1982, agreement as an enforceable private contract between the parties, [wife] will be required to commence a civil action for whatever amounts may he due her under • that contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leonard v. Leonard“The parties’ rights to their respective interests in their property were irrevocably fixed by the terms of the divorce decree and could not later be modified by court order. [Wife], of course, was entitled to convey her interest in the property. We conclude that the consideration for her agreement to convey her interest to the bank for the satisfaction of the mortgage was [husband’s] promise to substitute a $200.00 monthly payment by way of housing allowance for [wife’s] property interest in the residence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leonard v. Leonard
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.