Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably United States v. Rodgers (1983), In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America (2004)
3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Arnold v. Leonard · Lewis v. Davis · Woods v. Alvarado State Bank · Hilley v. Hilley · Edwards County v. Jennings
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that acquired afterward by Gift, devise, or descent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Beck v. Beck · Winger v. Pianka“1. Property to be separately owned. After the solemnization of the marriage between the parties, each of them shall separately retain all rights in his or her own property, whether now owned or hereafter acquired, and each of them shall have the absolute and unrestricted right to dispose of such separate property, free from any claim that may be made by the other by reason of their marriage, and with the same effect as if no marriage had been consummated between them. [Emphasis added.] [A supplemental agreement was simultaneously executed and incorporated into the basic agreement. It disclosed the properties that each spouse would bring into the marriage, set forth certain guidelines concerning living and other incidental expenses to be incurred during the marriage.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunter v. Clark“The trial court correctly concluded that the agreement was void to the extent that income or other property acquired during marriage should be the separate property of the party who earned or whose property produced such income or acquisition. Such provisions were no more than a mere agreement between the parties to establish the character of the property prior to its acquisition during marriage in violation of both the Texas Constitution and the Family Code, Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 15; Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 5.01 (1975); see Gorman v. Gause, 56 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1933, jdmt. adopted); Arnold v. Leonard, 114 Tex. 535 , 273 S.W. 799 (1925); Hilley v. Hilley, 161 Tex. 569 , 342 S.W.2d 565 (1961).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beck v. Beck
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.