Markham v. Markham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 13 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`vests the family court with broad discretion to divide and distribute the estate of the parties whether community, joint or separate in a just and equitable manner'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schiller v. Schiller · Kakinami v. Kakinami

2. “Each instrument presented for recording must contain a certificate of acknowledgment verifying the identity of the person executing the instrument. HRS § 502-41 (1993). “The main object of a certificate of acknowledgment is to guard the public against false impersonation and to make sure that the grantor executed the deed. ... Executing a deed implies that it is executed for the uses and purposes it expresses.” Hawaiian Trust & Inv. Co. v. Barton, 16 Haw. 294, 300 (1904) [[Image here]] It has also been held that even without recordation, “ ‘[a] deed apparently valid upon its face carries with it a presumption of validity’” as between the parties to a deed. Chun Chew Pang v. Chun Chew Kee, 49 Haw. 62, 71 , 412 P.2d 326, 332 (1966) (quoting McElroy v. Calhoun, 177 Okla. 38 , 57 P.2d 827, 828 (1936)). “Even if the deed had no acknowledgment, or its equivalent, at all, it would still be good between the parties. As between the parties acknowledgment of a deed is not necessary.” Meheula v. Pioneer Mill Co., 17 Haw. 56, 58 (1905) (citing Laanui v. Puohu, 2 Haw. 161 (1859)). See also In re Nelson, 26 Haw. 809, 820 (1923); Aiau v. Kupau, 4 Haw. 384, 385 (1881) (holding that recording is notice to one bound to search the record).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schmidt v. Pacific Benefit Services, Inc.

3. “Under the partnership model of marriage we have accepted, a final division of marital property can be decreed only when the partnership is dissolved and not after a declaration by either spouse that the marriage has ended. Hence, the termination point of the marriage partnership for purposes of property division is the conclusion of the divorce trial.”

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