Newman v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 39 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““a. Petitioner lacks sufficient property, including marital property apportioned to her, to provide for her reasonable needs. b. Petitioner is unable to support herself through appropriate employment. c. Petitioner’s assets are as stated on her Affidavit With Respect to Financial Affairs, filed with this Court on December 14, 1983, as corrected by her testimony relating to two small bank accounts. She is unable to meet her needs independently due to her disability. d. Petitioner’s future earning capacity is extremely limited and it does not appear, at age 62, that additional education or training will enable her to find appropriate employment. e. The parties enjoyed a comfortable standard of living during their marriage as evidenced by some foreign travel, attendance at numerous social functions and their ability to maintain the lifestyle they desired. f. The parties were married almost exactly seven (7) years, during which time they appeared to equally share in the fruits of their relationship. g. Petitioner is a 62 year-old woman whose physical condition hinders her from gainful employment and the social activities which she engaged in previously. Her emotional condition appears satisfactory. h. Respondent has the ability to meet his own needs while meeting the needs of the petitioner. i. Petitioner has current monthly income of approximately $350 (exclusive of maintenance) and expects to have monthly expenses of approximately $860. Her current net worth is less than $5,000”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re the Marriage of Meisner

2. “[S]uch provisions may lose their legal vitality by reason of changing circumstances which render the antenuptial provisions for maintenance to be unconscionable at the time of the marriage dissolution * * * * * * It is not unrealistic to recognize that the health and employability of the spouse may have so deteriorated during a marriage that to enforce the maintenance provisions of an antenuptial agree ment would result in the spouse becoming a public charge. Thus, we do not subscribe to the view that the antenup-tial agreement, even though entered into in accordance with the strict tests heretofore alluded to, is strictly enforceable regardless of intervening events which have rendered it in effect unconscionable. In our view, unconscionability * " as applied to a maintenance agreement exists when enforcement of the terms of the agreement results in a spouse having insufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs and who is otherwise unable to support himself through appropriate employment.”

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

3. “It is not unrealistic to recognize that the health and employability of the spouse may have so deteriorated during a marriage that to enforce the maintenance provisions of an antenuptial agreement would result in the spouse becoming a public charge. Thus, we do not subscribe to the view that the antenuptial agreement, even though entered into in accordance with the strict tests heretofore alluded to, is strictly enforceable regardless of intervening events which have rendered it in effect unconscionable. [[Image here]] In our view, unconscionability ... as applied to a maintenance agreement exists when enforcement of the terms of the agreement results in a spouse having insufficient property to provide for his reasonable needs and who is otherwise unable to support himself through appropriate employment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sabra Elaine Ellis O'Daniel v. Rusty Wade O'Daniel