54 Wis. 2d 329 - Beberfall v. Beberfall’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 1976
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 29 Wis. 2d 145 - Wendland v. Wendland · 41 Wis. 2d 435 - Dees v. Dees · 25 Wis. 2d 587 - Chandler v. Chandler
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In oral argument counsel for appellant asserted that the insurance provisions in the divorce judgment are part of the property settlement rather than part of the support payments and are therefore not subject to modification. Reliance was placed upon Couch on Insurance. Couch refers to insurance provisions which require that the wife be the beneficiary of the insurance policy. In the present case only the children were made beneficiaries, and the trial court specifically found that it was the intention of the parties that this provision was to provide support for the children in the event of their father’s death. Thus on the facts of this case the insurance provisions in the divorce judgment are clearly to provide support for the children in the event respondent dies.””
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.