Bradshaw v. Bradshaw’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[TJhe trial court found the property agreement was grossly unfair, but also found appellant wife failed to prove fraud was exercised by appellee upon appellant. Apparently, the trial court and appellee were of the opinion that unless appellant's evidence proved actual fraud was committed upon appellant by appellee the judgment could not be vacated. We think a close reading of the cases shows otherwise .... the cases also state that evidence of "legal fraud," undue influence, or unfair advantage justifies a court of equity in setting aside a property settlement agreement. Key v. Key, Okl., 388 P.2d 505 (1964); Brasier v. Brasier, 200 Okl. 689 , 200 P.2d 427 (1948); Burton v. Burton, 176 Okl. 494 , 56 P.2d 385 (1936); Mann v. Mann, 135 Okl. 211 , 275 P. 348 (1929); Wooden v. Wooden, 113 Okl. 81 , 239 P. 231 (1925); Montgomery v. Montgomery, 41 Okl. 581 , 139 P. 288 (1914). Additionally, where a person is induced to enter into an agreement under cireumstances which deprive her of the existence of her free will, the agreement so obtained constitutes duress. Samuels Shoe Co. v. Frensley, 151 Okl. 196 , 3 P.2d 216 (1931). In the Key case, supra, the Supreme Court, in the second syllabus, clearly stated the law as follows: "By reason of the special confidential or fiduciary relation existing between husband and wife the opportunity of one to take undue advantage over the other exists, and any course of dealing between them settling property rights preparatory to securing a divorce i”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marriage of Cooper v. Cooper

2. “[T]he establishment of a subsequent common-law marriage will not reestablish the parties’ previous marital relationship or vacate a prior divorce decree. The means of reestablishing the parties’ previous marital relationship is found in 12 O.S. 1971 § 1288; i.e., both parties must apply to have the decree set aside. ... [Assuming a post divorce common-law marriage was established, this would be a new contract of marriage which would necessitate an entirely new and separate divorce suit, and could not be litigated by motion to vacate a judgment entered in a divorce of a different marriage. ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Henderson v. Henderson