Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 654 So. 2d 1365 - Becker v. Becker

654 So. 2d 1365 - Becker v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2012

7 state decisions

40199520002010decided

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 588 So. 2d 786 - Billingsley v. Bach Energy Corp. · Folse v. American Well Control · State ex rel. Green v. Clark · 509 So. 2d 681 - Romero v. Romero · Wagner v. Wagner

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

  1. “One reason given by the trial court for its decision was that a construction of the contract that would require a man to pay alimony to his ex-wife while she was living in open concubinage would render the contract contra bonos mores. We disagree. Open concubinage is contra bonos mores, but payment of alimony is not. Here we are dealing with a contract the object of which is the payment of alimony after divorce.... The contract does not call on either party to do anything illegal or immoral. Therefore, the trial court’s conclusion that the contract was contra bonos mores is clearly wrong.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In the absence of a vice of consent, a court cannot undermine a contract simply because it was a bad deal for one of the parties.”
    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.