Bacon v. Bacon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Alimony always rested in discretion, was variable and revocable; subject to the continuing authority of the court over it, to be exercised from time to time, in view of changes in the premises on which it had been granted. Campbell v. Campbell, 37 Wis. 206 . So sec. 28 [of the chapter on divorce as it then existed], still dealing with alimony in its proper, technical sense, authorizes the revision of the judgment granting it, and such new judgment for it, from time to time afterward, as the court might have originally made. Helden v. Helden, 7 Wis. 296 ; Williams v. Williams, 29 Wis. 517 ; S. C. 36 Wis. 362 ; Campbell v. Campbell, supra; Hopkins v. Hopkins, 40 Wis. 462 ; Thomas v. Thomas, 41 Wis. 229.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ashby v. Ashby

2. ““The husband’s estate of which division and distribution may be made, may be real or personal, or both. When judgment of divorce awards personalty only to the wife, whether payable like an annuity or in a gross sum, it is prima facie for alimony; and if it be intended to operate as a division ■and distribution of estate, the judgment must so declare. Then only will it be final. Hopkins v. Hopkins [ 40 Wis. 462 ], Thomas v. Thomas [ 41 Wis. 229 ], supra. But if judgment of divorce divest the husband of his title to realty, transferring it to the wife, it is necessarily division and distribution of estate. . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lally v. Lally

3. ““It is quite apparent that the original judgment of the court below was framed upon a different theory, and regards both the real and personal estate assigned to the wife as alimony. Indeed it expressly so calls them. But this is a patent and mere misuse of the word, not affecting the legal construction of the judgment. The words, alimony and allowance, used in it, are superfluous. The judgment must be taken according to its legal effect as judgment for division and distribution between the parties of the husband’s estate, real and personal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lally v. Lally