Paul v. Paul’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

64 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"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." W.S. 20-2-114.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Susan Lynn Kummerfeld v. John Gary Kummerfeld · Sellers v. Sellers

2. “’ As an appellate court, we consider that our power to disturb a property settlement fixed by a trial judge is limited indeed. There must be a clear abuse of discretion before we will upset or adjust such a settlement. We consider ‘abuse of discretion,’ to be such abuse as shocks the conscience of the court. It must appear so unfair and inequitable that reasonable persons could not abide it.” Paul v. Paul, supra, at 714. See also, Kane v. Kane, Wyo., 577 P.2d 172 (1978).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grosskopf v. Grosskopf · Basolo v. Basolo

3. “We will not disturb a property division in a divorce case, except on clear grounds, as the trial court is usually in a better position than the appellate court to judge the parties' needs and the merits of their positions.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jason William Stephen v. Amy Jo Stephen · Rhonda Marie Sinclair v. Kevin Dean Sinclair