Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 583 P.2d 1265 - Hendrickson v. Hendrickson

Hendrickson v. Hendrickson’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Reavis v. Reavis (1998), Grosskopf v. Grosskopf (1984)

31 state decisions

100197819801990200020102020decided

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 72 Wis. 2d 631 - Anderson v. Anderson · First National Bank v. Ford · Bowes v. Bowes · Salmeri v. Salmeri · Lonabaugh v. Lonabaugh

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

  1. “"The defendant-appellee seeks attorney's fees for her representation in this appeal in a divorce matter. Such fees are properly allowable. The record shows no affluence on her part and the plaintiff-appellant has cast upon her the burden of protecting her position. Under those circumstances, we will allow what we consider to be a reasonable sum of $300.00 to be applied against whatever appellee's attorney's fees may be payable at the rate of $100.00 per month, the first of which payments shall become due on September 1, 1978. Heyl v. Heyl, Wyo. 1974, 518 P.2d 28 , reh. den. We consider that there was reasonable cause for appeal, so we shall deny any award of damages as requested by defendant-appellee pursuant to Rule 72(k), W.R.C.P. Our allowance of attorney's fees is pursuant to the court's authority to do so in divorce matters to assist the defendant in the continuing defense of the action, sec. 20-2-11 W.S. 1977, and not as a penalty under Rule 72(k), W.R.C.P." Id., at 1268.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he court may decree to either party reasonable alimony out of the estate of the other having regard for the other's ability * * *.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In granting a divorce, the court shall make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears just and equitable, having regard for the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce, the party through whom the property was acquired and the burdens imposed upon the property for the benefit of either party and children. The court may decree to either party reasonable alimony out of the estate of the other having regard for the other’s ability and may order so much of the other’s real estate or the rents and profits thereof as is necessary be assigned and set out to either party for life, or may decree a specific sum be paid by either party[ 1 ]”
    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.