Morone v. Morone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 35 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The major difficulty with implying a contract from the rendition of services for one another by persons living together is that it is not reasonable to infer an agreement to pay for the services rendered when the relationship of the parties makes it natural that the services were rendered gratuitously.... As a matter of human experience personal services will frequently be rendered by two people living together because they value each other’s company or because they find it a convenient or rewarding thing to do.... For courts to attempt through hindsight to sort out the intentions of the parties and affix jural significance to conduct carried out within an essentially private and generally noncon-tractual relationship runs too great a risk of error. Absent an express agreement, there is no frame of reference against which to compare the testimony presented and the character of the evidence that can be presented becomes more evanescent. There is, therefore, substantially greater risk of emotion-laden afterthought, not to mention fraud, in attempting to ascertain by implication what services, if any, were rendered gratuitously and what compensation, if any, the parties intended to be paid.” (Authorities omitted.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Tapley v. Tapley · Johnston v. Estate of Phillips

2. ““Changing social custom has increased greatly the number of persons living together without solemnized ceremony and consequently without benefit of the rules of law that govern property and financial matters between married couples. The difficulties attendant upon establishing property and financial rights between unmarried couples under available theories of law other than contract (see Douthwaite, loe. cit.) warrant application of Gorden’s recognition of express contract even though the services rendered be limited to those generally characterized as ‘housewifely’ (Matter of Adams, 1 AD2d 259 , affd 2 NY2d 796 ; cf. Dombrowski v Somers, 41 NY2d 858 ). There is, moreover, no statutory requirement that such a contract as plaintiff here alleges be in writing (cf. General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd a, pars 1, 3).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 6 Misc. 3d 393 - Trombley v. Sorrelle

3. ““New York courts have long accepted the concept that an express agreement between unmarried persons living together is as enforceable as though they were not living together (Rhodes v Stone, 63 Hun 624 , opn in 17 NYS 561 ; Vincent v Moriarty, 31 App Div 484 ), provided only that illicit sexual relations were not ‘part of the consideration of the contract’ (Rhodes v Stone, supra, at 17 NYS, p 562, quoted in Matter of Gorden, 8 NY2d 71, 75 , supra). The theory of these cases is that while cohabitation without marriage does not give rise to the property and financial rights which normally attend the marital relation, neither does cohabitation disable the parties from making an agreement within the normal rules of contract law (Matter of Gorden, supra, at p 75; see Ann., 94 ALR3d 552, 559).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 6 Misc. 3d 393 - Trombley v. Sorrelle