Conley v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 district · 34 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The primary purpose of these acts was to free the wife from the husband’s domination in property matters; to accomplish that it was requisite to place the wife upon an equal footing with the husband as to the ownership, control, and enjoyment of property, and as to contractual rights in general, with an equal right to resort to the courts. The intention was, in these respects, to place husband and wife upon a parity.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dutton v. Hightower and Lubrecht Construction Co. · Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co.

2. “Section 36-128, 1947 Rev.Code, Annotated. “A married woman may sue and be sued in the same manner as if she were sole.” The court refused recovery, stating: “Clearly, the object of the Married Women’s Act of Montana yas to relieve the wife of common-law disabilities ; among others, to place the wife on an equality with her husband with respect to property matters, the right to contract, and to sue ■ and be sued. We see nothing in any of the foregoing statutes to indicate a purpose to create a right which neither husband nor wife had at common law. “These sections do not attempt to confer greater rights of action upon a married woman than are possessed by her husband. * * * ‘By legislation common-law disabilities of the wife have been largely lifted, but lifting a disability does not operate to grant a right of action theretofore nonexistent between husband and wife. * * * Surely the Legislature, in conferring equality of right to sue did not confer a right of action never possessed by husband or wife at common law.’ * * *»”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Romero v. Romero

3. ““In determining the intendment of a statute we bear in mind that in this jurisdiction the rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed has no application; the Codes established the law of this state respecting the subject to which they relate, and their provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to eifect their objects and promote justice, Section 4, Rev.Codes 1921 [now See. 12-202, R.C.M.1947].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co.