Barkley v. Dumke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Therefore we think it should be taken as the settled doctrine in this state, that in case of a marriage of the character of that in controversy, the putative wife, so long as she acts innocently, has as to the property acquired during that time the rights of a lawful wife. If as a de facto wife she have the rights of a lawful spouse, we think it follows as a necessary corollary, that she has corresponding obligations and that her status becomes that of a lawful married woman.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railway Co. v. Robertson · Mendez v. Mendez

2. ““Perhaps under the strict rules of common law, we should be constrained to rule that the marriage of defendant in error with Wood was absolutely void to all intents and purposes and therefore to hold the conveyance from Wood and the putative wife also void. But we are of the opinion that the common-law rule does not apply to this case. The title of the act of January 20; 1840, entitled ‘An act to adopt the common law of England, to repeal certain Mexican laws, and to regulate the marital rights of parties,’ indicates that the rights of married persons were to be defined by statute and not to be governed by the rules of the common law. The provisions of the act with reference to married persons, are so inconsistent with the rules of the common law as to show an intention to maintain in reference to marital rights a radically different system. The fact that these provisions were incorporated in the act which adopted the common law is of itself significant of the purpose of the Legislature, not to apply the rules of the common law as to the property rights of husband and wife. In this connection it is notable also that the statutory rules which were adopted are taken in the main from the Spanish law which then prevailed in the Republic. So striking is this fact as to justify Chief Justice Hemphill in - saying in Burr v. Wilson ( 18 Tex. 370 ): ‘Our laws on marital rights are in substance hut a continuation of the rules of Spanish jurisprudence on the same subject-matter;’ and ag”

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

3. ““We would not be understood as saying that the rules of the common law as to husband and wife apply in no case under our system. They have been frequently applied in divers instances in the decisions of our courts. What- we do hold is that the common law as to the consequences of a void marriage does not apply in this case.””

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