Lonabaugh v. Lonabaugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The case of Moore v. Moore, relied on by appellant, also presented facts widely divergent from those now before us for consideration. There the defendant husband admitted that the wife had advanced to him from her own personal funds, in the neighborhood of |10,000, and the district court, in declining to modify the previous divorce decree which required certain payments to be made to her, expressly found that ‘the plaintiff during her marriage with defendant contributed not less than five thousand dollars from her own funds to the support of plaintiff and defendant; that the provisions of the decree as to permanent alimony chargeable to defendant were ‘in the nature among other things of a settlement of the claim of plaintiff against defendant, and that therefore the said decree should not at this time be modified’ ’. The record here discloses no such situation and obviously demands the application of a different legal principle.””

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

2. “While it may be expected reasonably that a mother who has been generous in the past will be generous in the future, yet she alone is the judge of the measure and circumstances of her generosity. An award of alimony in this action should not be based upon an assumption that, if it be necessary to enforce the award by contempt proceedings against the defendant, the mother through love for her son will come to his aid rather than see him subjected to imprisonment.”

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

3. ““Under statutes of this character, it is generally held, as stated in the very full note on the point, with collected cases, in 58 A. L. R. 639, that ‘where a court has the general power to modify a decree for alimony or support, the exercise of that power is not affected by the fact that the decree is based on an agreement entered into by the parties to the action’ ”.”

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