Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 537 SW2D 107 - Williams v. Williams

Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
July 1989
most recently cited

18 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Hedtke v. Hedtke · Carle v. Carle · Bishop v. Bishop · Bell v. Bell · Zaruba v. Zaruba

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

  1. ““In considering these points, which charge that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering an unequal division of the property between the parties, we are mindful of the rule that where there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law, we must consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences and deductions that may be properly drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee, [citing cases] Also there is a presumption in favor of the trial court’s exercise of its discretion regarding division of property in a divorce action, [citing cases]””
    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.