Guillory v. Guillory’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"(a) The income, means and assets of the spouses; (b) The liquidity of such assets; (c) The financial obligations of the spouses, including their earning capacity; (d) The effect of custody of children of the marriage upon the spouse's earning capacity; ... (f) The health and age of the parties and their obligations to support or care for dependent children; and (g) Any other circumstances that the court deems relevant." (Emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 691 So. 2d 834 - McLaughlin v. McLaughlin · 643 So. 2d 216 - Hester v. Hester

2. “"Fault" contemplates conduct or substantial acts of commission or omission by a spouse violative of his or her marital duties or responsibilities. Pearce v. Pearce, 348 So.2d 75 (La.1977); Mathews v. Mathews, 614 So.2d 1287 (La. App. 2d Cir.1993); Currier v. Currier, 599 So.2d 456 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992); Taylor v. Taylor, 579 So.2d 1142 (La. App. 2d Cir.1991). The 1990 marriage dissolution revisions which included the repeal of CC Art. 138 (grounds for separation from bed and board), renumbered, but did not alter the post-divorce alimony provisions. Mathews, Currier, and Taylor , cited supra. A spouse's obligations or marital duties and responsibilities of fidelity, support, and assistance have remained the same irrespective of the codal revisions. Currier, supra. "Fault" for purposes of alimony preclusion continues to include the grounds enumerated in former CC Art. 138 (adultery; conviction of a felony; habitual intemperance or excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages; public defamation; abandonment; an attempt on the other's life; status as a fugitive; and intentional non-support), and is not limited to the fault grounds currently listed in CC Art. 103 (adultery or a felony conviction). See Mathews, supra; Wicker v. Wicker, 597 So.2d 1273 (La.App. 3d Cir.1992). Compare Gitschlag v. Gitschlag, 593 So.2d 1331 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991). A spouse seeking permanent alimony has the burden of proving that he or she is without fault. Taylor, supra; Green v. Green, 567 So.2d 139 (La.App.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Floyd v. Floyd · 735 So. 2d 809 - Goodnight v. Goodnight

3. “for support of the party seeking alimony, citing our circuit's opinion in Gottsegen, supra . In the Third Circuit case, the parties had not submitted a detailed listing of their expenses, so the appellate court was unable to conclude that any items were improperly included. The court noted that the trial court is vested with much discretion in fixing alimony awards, and its rulings”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 643 So. 2d 216 - Hester v. Hester