Abbott v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The Wisconsin Supreme Court considered precisely this issue in Stuart v. Stuart, 143 Wis.2d 347 , 421 N.W.2d 505 (1988). The court held that forcing such a dilemma on a divorcing spouse would contravene public policy: “ ‘If an abused spouse cannot commence a tort action subsequent to a divorce, the spouse will be forced to elect between three equally unacceptable alternatives: (1) Commence a tort action during the marriage and possibly endure additional abuse; (2) join a tort claim in a divorce action and waive the right to a jury trial on the tort claim; or (3) commence an action to terminate the marriage, fore-go [sic] the tort claim, and surrender the right to recover damages arising from spousal abuse. To enforce such an election would require an abused spouse to surrender both the constitutional right to a jury trial and valuable property rights to preserve his or her well-being. This the law will not do.’ “Id., 421 N.W.2d at 508 (adopting language of intermediate Wisconsin appellate court). Since a jury trial is not available in an Alabama divorce action, a divorcing spouse in Alabama would be in the same predicament. We do not believe that the Alabama courts would be any less protective of the light to a jury trial than the courts of Wisconsin.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walton v. Cowin Equipment Co., Inc. · Osborne v. Osborne

2. “"Alabama precedent does not establish a bright-line rule that a divorce judgment automatically precludes one former spouse from suing the other in tort based upon conduct which occurred during the marriage. Rather it suggests that each such case be examined on its own facts and circumstances: a case is within the `field of operation' left open by Harrington if a settlement agreement, merged into a final divorce judgment, did not cover the tort claim, or if all elements of the tort claim were not fully litigated and decided in the divorce action, even though the divorce action has proceeded to final judgment."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 128 - Tyndal v. Howle

3. “"[I]n Ex parte Harrington, 450 So.2d 99, 101 (Ala.1984), the Alabama Supreme Court specifically answered the question of whether the cause of action in [an assault-and-battery] suit based on conduct occurring during the parties' marriage is necessarily identical to the cause of action in a divorce suit where substantially the same conduct is alleged as a ground for divorce."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 776 So. 2d 128 - Tyndal v. Howle