8 Va. App. 460 - Drewry v. Drewry’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Brown v. Harris (2001), Rawlings v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. (2001)
55 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 Winn v. Aleda Const. Co., Inc. · Avriett v. Avriett · Nationwide Insurance v. Patterson · 1 Va. App. 118 - Parra v. Parra · Wells v. Weston
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[M]arital property settlements entered into by competent parties upon valid consideration for lawful purposes are favored in the law and such will be enforced unless their illegality is clear and certain." Cooley v. Cooley, 220 Va. 749, 752 , 263 S.E.2d 49, 52 (1980) (citation omitted); Derby v. Derby, 8 Va.App. 19, 25 , 378 S.E.2d 74, 77 (1989). Therefore, in this case, [husband] "had the burden at trial to prove by clear and convincing evidence the grounds alleged to void or rescind the agreement." Drewry v. Drewry, 8 Va.App. 460, 463 , 383 S.E.2d 12, 12 (1989).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to establish constructive fraud, one must prove the following by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence: that there was a material false representation, that the hearer believed it to be true, that it was meant to be acted on, that it was acted on, and that damage was sustained .... For constructive fraud to exist, the party seeking to avoid a contract need not show that there was an actual "intent to deceive" by the other party, but it is necessary to prove that there has been a material misrepresentation. 8 Va. App. at p. 471.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hinson v. Hinson“When a court considers whether a contract is unconscionable, adequacy of price or quality of value transferred in the contract is of initial concern. If a “gross disparity in the value exchanged” exists then the court should consider “whether oppressive influences affected the agreement to the extent that the process was unfair and the terms of the resulting agreement unconscionable.””
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.