Hook v. Hook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. An agreement to marry gives rise to a confidential relation between the contracting parties. “2. An antenuptial contract voluntarily entered into during the period of engagement is valid when the provision for the wife is fair and reasonable under all the surrounding facts and circumstances. “3. When the amount provided for the wife in an antenuptial contract entered into during the existence of the confidential relation arising from an engagement is wholly disproportionate to the property of the prospective husband in the light of all surrounding circumstances and to the amount she would take under the law, the burden is on those claiming the validity of the contract to show that before it was entered into he made full disclosure to her of the nature, extent and value of his property or that she then had full knowledge thereof without such disclosure. “4. Although the provision made for the intended wife in an antenuptial contract is wholly disproportionate, she will be bound by voluntarily entering into the contract after full disclosure or with full knowledge.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 Ohio App. 3d 97 - In Re Mize · 66 Ohio App. 3d 744 - Sasarak v. Sasarak

2. “* * * in excess of sixty thousand ($60,000) dollars, at the date hereof * * the actual total was $86,652.53. This was held to satisfy the full disclosure requirement since there was no evidence the wife had been misled as to the extent of her husband's property even though she would take a disproportionate share under the agreement than she would at law. Hook, supra. The referee cited extensive testimony of plaintiff upon which he relied at the hearing below to arrive at the conclusion that plaintiff was an independent individual, an avid reader, well read and competent who voluntarily signed the antenuptial agreement which disclosed the assets each brought to the marriage. 5 In addition, the referee's factual findings indicated and included a notarized agreement made on July 11, 1987. This agreement was entered into by Lillian and the younger Michael Sasarak, who held a durable power of attorney for his father 6 . The agreement was entered into for the distribution of assets from the sale of the Palm Drive property located in North Olmsted; the net proceeds to be distributed on the basis of 50% to plaintiff and 50% to decedent's son Michael J. Sasarak. The plain language of the agreement follows: "Whereas Lillian and Michael entered into a Prenuptial Agreement 7 on April 21,1981 * * *;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 66 Ohio App. 3d 744 - Sasarak v. Sasarak

3. “Ordinarily, one of full age in the possession of his faculties and able to read and write, who signs an instrument and remains acquiescent to its operative effect for some time, may not thereafter escape the consequences by urging that he did not read it or that he relied upon the representations of another as to its contents or significance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. English v. Cornwell Quality Tools, Co., Unpublished Decision (12-30-2005)