8 Ark. App. 177 - Linehan v. Linehan’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably 60 Ark. App. 164 - Bishop v. Bishop (1998), 32 Ark. App. 65 - Bolan v. Bolan (1990)
28 state decisions
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 Bachus v. Bachus · Lively v. Lively · 66 Wis. 2d 577 - Wyandotte Chemicals Corp. v. Royal Electric Manufacturing Company, Inc. · Seaton v. Seaton · York v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Seaton v. Seaton, 221 Ark. 778 , 255 S.W.2d 954 (1953), the Arkansas Supreme Court distinguished between the two major types of agreements for the payment of alimony, stating: Our decisions have recognized two different types of agreement for the payment of alimony. One is an independent contract, usually in writing, by which the husband, in contemplation of the divorce, binds himself to pay |4a fixed amount or fixed installments for his wife’s support. Even though such a contract is approved by the chancellor and incorporated in the decree, as in the Backus [v. Backus, 216 Ark. 802 , 227 S.W.2d 439 ] case, it does not merge into the court’s award of alimony, and consequently, as we pointed out in that opinion, the wife has a remedy at law on the contract in the event the chancellor has reason not to enforce his decretal award by contempt proceedings. The second type of agreement is that by which the parties, without making a contract that is meant to confer upon the wife an independent cause of action, merely agree upon “the amount the court by its decree should fix as alimony”... A contract of the latter character is usually less formal than an independent property settlement; it may be intended merely as a means of dispensing with the proof upon an issue not in dispute, and by its nature it merges in the divorce decree.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are not saying that a stipulation in every instance will have the full force and effect of a binding agreement or a contractual right, but when, as here, all the rights and liabilities of the parties are covered in such a total and complete agreement, then it will not be modifiable.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Oral stipulations made in open court which are taken down by the reporter and acted upon by the parties and court are valid and binding. Such stipulations are in the nature of a contract. . . . Contractual stipulations affect the subject matter of the lawsuit. They deal with the rights or property at issue and are styled stipulations only because they occur in connection with the litigation. Lawrence v. Lawrence, 217 N.W.2d 792 (N.D. 1974). ... A contractual stipulation can only be withdrawn on grounds for nullifying a contract, i.e., fraud, misrepresentation.”
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.