Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 SW2D 646 - Townsend v. Townsend

Townsend v. Townsend’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
5
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Zueck v. Oppenheimer Gateway Properties, Inc. (1991), American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ward (1990)

10 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

1701986199020002010decided

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 Wisconsin v. Illinois · Gustafson v. Benda · Klein v. Klein · Schubert v. August Schubert Wagon Co. · Jones v. State Highway Commission

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. ““We are not unaware of the fact that in the greater number of jurisdictions the courts have held that the wife cannot sue the husband for an injury to her person. * * * In some of the cases the courts construed statutes wholly unlike ours; in others, the statutes somewhat resemble ours; and in still others, the statutes are practically the same as ours. It would be a fruitless task to discuss the various terms of the many statutes. To attempt to reconcile the decisions would be to attempt the impossible. In 13 R.C.L. pp. 1396, 1397 it is said: ‘Opposed to the general view taken by the courts as to the effect of the married women’s statutes on her right to sue her husband for a tort committed by him on her person, the statutes have been construed in several very recent cases to so abrogate the common law fiction of the identity of husband and wife as to permit a wife to maintain an action against her husband for a tort to her person. And it has been said that apart from the consideration of the particular forms of statutes involved, the opinions in these recent cases together with the dissents in earlier cases construing statutes concerning married women’s rights, seem to indicate a growing inclination to construe such statutes liberally, and, if possible, to give this right of action thereunder, and not to consider it as opposed to “public policy” so to do.’ ” Id. at 742-743. “ * * * Nor can we foresee that personal injury suits between spouses will be any more damaging to ma”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Our holding today shall be applicable to all actions in which a final order, decree or judgment has not been entered as of the date of issuance of this opinion.” Townsend, 708 S.W.2d at 650 [4]; S.A.V., 708 S.W.2d at 653 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.