Pavlica v. Pavlica’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2016
9 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 Kerr v. Kerr · Lay v. Lay · Salmeri v. Salmeri · 196 So. 2d 111 - Salomon v. Salomon · Rhinehart v. Rhinehart
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Our statutes do grant power to the trial court to revise a divorce decree in two areas, which are: the 'care, custody and maintenance of the children'" [§ 20-2-113, W.$.1977] and for a revision of alimony or other allowances for a party or the children' [§ 20-2-116, W.S.1977] These statutes are in no manner applicable in this case because there are no minor children, and because the portion of the decree which the court sought to modify is a property settlement and not alimony, nor does appellee question this. "There is a widely recognized rule that the trial court does not have power to modify a decree insofar as it contains an agreed property settlement or if it is in the nature of a property settlement. For cases illustrating this rule, see Lay v. Lay, 162 Colo. 43 , 425 P.2d 704, 707 ; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla., 196 So.2d 111, 112 ; Kerr v. Kerr, [809] Minn. [124], 243 N.W.2d 313, 314 ; see also, 24 Am.Jur.2d, Divorce and Separation, § 821, p. 933; 27B C.J.S. Divorce § 800(4), p. 885. These cases do not recognize any exception based upon the changed financial condition of the parties. "We have most persuasive Wyoming authority for the disposal hereof. In Moore v. Moore, 33 Wyo. 230 , 237 P. 235 , this court earlier recognized that under § 5006, C.S. 1920, a precursor of § 20-2-116, W.S.1977, that if payments were to be made in lieu of a division of the property, a decree should not be modified. In Strahan v. Strahan, Wyo., 400 P.2d 542, 545-546 , this court made the follo”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our statutes do grant power to the trial court to revise a divorce decree in two areas, which are: the 'care, custody and maintenance of the children'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paul v. Paul
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.