Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 SO2D 148 - Weeks v. Weeks

Weeks v. Weeks’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2018

9 state decisions

501981199020002010decided

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 385 So. 2d 610 - Stone v. Stone · 350 So. 2d 44 - Blackmon v. Blackmon · 386 So. 2d 722 - Welborn v. Welborn · 203 So. 2d 598 - Wiener v. Pierce

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although the statute gives joint owners the right to have their property partitioned, the right is not one that cannot be restricted or limited for a reasonable length of time by contract, will, or deed. It is a well settled general rule that the right of partition may be limited by the provisions of the deed under which the parties claim and that joint owners may contract that their property will not be partitioned for a reasonable length of time.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “clearly could be said to be unreasonable. Obviously, the reasonableness of such occupancy would depend on the facts of each particular case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[P]roperty settlements under divorce actions are binding on the parties if fair, equitable and supported by consideration.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.