Barr v. Barr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Wife] points to evidence that [boyfriend] had a separate residence in Tucson, did not commingle funds with [wife] and did not contribute to household expenses. She argues that to establish ‘conjugal cohabitation’ requires more than occasional or even frequent overnight visits, but circumstances such that a court can view the relationship as a substitute for the married state, or as analogous to marriage.” [[Image here]] “The plain language of the agreement does not call for the interpretation proposed by [wife] that she must have had a live-in companion at her home who was held out as a spouse. Without resorting to a dictionary definition of the words ‘conjugal’ and ‘cohabitation,’ what [wife] and [boyfriend] did in Tucson satisfied the maintenance termination clause. They admittedly had sex, and he kept clothing and numerous personal items at her home. [Boyfriend] spent ten to twelve nights a month there when he was not on the road, as compared to one night a month at his ‘company rental unit.’ Despite the pretense of [boyfriend's] maintaining a separate residence,, the evidence supports the trial court’s finding that [boyfriend] was cohabiting with [wife] in [wife’s] house.... The plain language chosen by the parties does not require that the couple hold themselves out to be married or share expenses. Similarly, the language does not demand that [boyfriend] not have another address. ... The testimony of the child made more apparent the fact that [boyfriend] was at [wife’s”

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

2. “This court accepts as true the evidence and inferences favorable to the trial court's judgment.”

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