Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 30 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An agreement for division of property is economic in nature - an ordinary contract. Courts therefore interpret ... settlement agreements using ordinary contract principles. Thus, the goal of courts in interpreting a settlement agreement is to ascertain and give effect to the parties' intent. Rules of contract construction and extrinsic evidence may be employed in giving effect to the parties' reasonable expectations. When a contract's terms are ambiguous or uncertain and its interpretation requires extrinsic evidence, its construction is a matter for the fact-finder. Hindsight tells us that the parties could have negotiated terms to resolve the present dispute, but they did not. Thus, the courts are left to divine their likely intent.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. James Peter Kobold v. Cindy Ann Kobold and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. · Cortney L. Schwartz v. Jodi S. Heeter

2. “[Property distribution settlements approved as part of a dissolution may be modified only where both parties consent or where there is fraud, undue influence, or duress, none of which is alleged here. Ind.Code § 31-15-2-17(c) (disposition of property settled by agreement may not be modified by court); Ind.Code § 31-15-7-9.1 (“orders concerning property disposition ... may not be ■ revoked or modified, except in case of fraud.”); [Marriage of Snow v. England, 862 N.E.2d 664, 668 (Ind.2007) ] (“As with other contracts, a division of property may only be modified according to the terms of the agreement, if the parties’ consent, or if fraud or duress occurs.’,’); Myers v. Myers, 560 N.E.2d 39, 42 (Ind.1990) (“A property settlement agreement incorporated into a final dissolution decree and order may not be modified unless the agreement so provides or the parties subsequently consent.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Steven M. Kelly v. Rebecca J. Kelly

3. “An agreement for division of property is economic in nature — an ordinary contract. See Bowman v. Bowman, 567 N.E.2d 828 (Ind.Ct.App.1991).... As with other contracts, a division of property may only be modified according to the terms of the agreement, if the parties’ [sic] consent, or if fraud or duress occurs. [I.C.] §§ 31-15-2-17(c), -7-9.1.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sean Thomas Ryan v. Dee Anna Ryan