734 So. 2d 327 - Dilling v. Dilling’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “are subject to limited application in ... actions which are generally governed by statutory procedures.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Townsend v. Townsend · 35 So. 3d 507 - In Re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood

2. “may be modified as other judgments for divorce.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Townsend v. Townsend · 35 So. 3d 507 - In Re Dissolution of Marriage of Wood

3. “¶ 21. The Court of Appeals stated: In East v. East, 493 So.2d 927, 931-32 (Miss.1986), the Mississippi Supreme Court advised: We have also historically recognized that parties may upon dissolution of their marriage have a property settlement incorporated in the divorce decree, and such property settlement is not subject to modification. A true and genuine property settlement agreement is no different from any other contract, and the mere fact that it is between a divorcing husband and wife, and incorporated in a divorce decree, does not change its character. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The supreme court then noted that Section 93-5-2 of the Mississippi Code "require[d] that the parties make a settlement of their property rights, and the agreement may be incorporated in the decree." A contract may be reformed. In Johnson v. Consolidated American Life Ins. Co., 244 So.2d 400, 402 (Miss.1971), the Mississippi Supreme Court explained: "The general rule in this state and elsewhere is that reformation of a contract is justified only (1) if the mistake is a mutual one, or (2) where there is a mistake on the part of one party and fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of the other. Allison v. Allison, 203 Miss. 15 , 33 So.2d 289 (1948)." However, "The mistake that will justify a reformation must be in the drafting of the instrument, not in the making of the contract." Johnson, 244 So.2d at 402 . A scrivener's error may be sufficient to warrant the reformation of an instrum”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Townsend v. Townsend