Newton v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 14 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The plaintiffs also ’ attempt to avoid the doctrine of the McDonald case (McDonald v. Lambert, supra) by invoking the statute of limitations and laches. It must be kept in mind that the parties to the contract lived together as husband and wife from the time of its execution until his death. It is the policy of the Law to prevent liti- ' gation between husband and wife, not to promote it as would be the case if the wife had to sue her husband to avoid limitations and laches. Cary et al. v. Cary, 159 Or. 578 , 80 P.2d 886 , 121 A.L.R. 1371 , and Bennett v. Finnegan, et al., 72 N.J.Eq. 155, 65 A. 239 . See also Annotation in 121 A.L.R. 1384 , and Torrez et al. v. Brady et al., 37 N.M. 105 , 19 P.2d 183 , where we held that limitations do not run by adverse possession as between husband and wife. The plaintiffs cite the case of Primus v. Clark, 48 N.M. 240 , 149 P.2d 535 , in support of their claim that limitations and laches run as between husband and wife. The parties in that case had been divorced for more than the applicable statutory period, and in addition only one member of this court concurred with the writer of the opinion, the other three merely concurring- in the result. That case is not authority here.” (Emphasis ours.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dolezal v. Blevins · Curtis v. Curtis