Cassibry v. Cassibry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(2) If the parties provide by written agreement for the custody and maintenance of any children of that marriage and for the settlement of any property rights between the parties and the court finds that such provisions are adequate and sufficient, the agreement may be incorporated in the judgment, and such judgment may be modified as other judgments for divorce. (3) If the parties are unable to agree upon adequate and sufficient provisions for the custody and maintenance of any children of that marriage or any property rights between them, they may consent to a divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences and permit the court to decide the issues upon which they cannot agree. Such consent must be in writing, signed by both parties personally, must state that the parties voluntarily consent to permit the court to decide such issues, which shall be specifically set forth in such consent, and that the parties understand that the decision of the court shall be a binding and lawful judgment. Such consent may not be withdrawn by a party without leave of the court after the court has commenced any proceeding, including the hearing of any motion or other matter pertaining thereto. The failure or refusal of either party to agree as to adequate and sufficient provisions for the custody and maintenance of any children of that marriage or any property rights between the parties, or any portion of such issues, or the failure or refusal of any party to consent to permit the court t”

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

2. “This matter came on for trial on September 10, 2009. The parties executed and filed with the [c]ourt a [e]onsent wherein they agreed that they would withdraw any and all fault grounds and, in writing, signed by both parties and their attorneys, stated[:] “The designated issues are settled. ■ All issues are settled and will be dictated into the record,” and [the parties will] proceed pursuant to [section] 93-5-2 ... with a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Immediately thereafter, the [a]greement was dictated into the record, both parties under oath and represented by their respective counsel. [[Image here]] The parties hereto have made a full, adequate, sufficient[,] and complete provision by agreement, as set forth in the transcript attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, for the custody and maintenance of the minor child and for the settlement of any property rights between the parties. Said [a]greement is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and made a part hereof as if copied in full herein. The aforesaid [a]greement entered into by and between the parties, attached hereto as Exhibit “A[,]” is hereby ... ratified and approved, and incorporated herein and made a part of this [fjinal [¡Judgment [o]f [djivorce as if copied in full herein; and the parties are hereby ordered to comply with the terms of conditions of said [a]greement. Based on the [c]onsent to [d]ivorce, this [cjourt signed an [o]rder on September 10, 2009, allowing the parties to withdraw their fault grou”

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

3. “Giving a strict interpretation to [section] 93-5-2(2), the statute provides that the parties provide a written agreement and that the court finds that such provisions are adequate and sufficient. After the reading of the agreement into the record, the chancellor found that the agreement was reasonable and granted a divorce based on irreconcilable differences without a written consent agreement being executed and filed. Because the statutory requirements were not met in this case, the chancellor exceeded his statutory authority in awarding a divorce upon grounds of irreconcilable differences.”

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