Case Citator › Hedtke v. Hedtke

Hedtke v. Hedtke

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Texas
Citation
248 S.W. 21
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
1977
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Hedtke v. Hedtke has been criticized: all 52 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed criticism is listed below. The Supreme Court of Texas rejected Hedtke's broad statement that a divorced husband owed family support obligations to his former wife, while preserving its rule permitting use of separate real property for child support without transferring title.
More on how this was screened

Later courts continue to apply its standard for reviewing marital property divisions.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

52 later cases cite Hedtke v. Hedtke; 52 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hedtke v. Hedtke?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Supreme Court of Texas called Hedtke's statement about a divorced husband's support obligation to his former wife overbroad, while affirming its limit on transferring title to separate real property.

    Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer · Supreme Court of Texas · filed

    Virginia Eggemeyer strongly relies upon Hedtke v. Hedtke, 112 Tex. 404, 248 S.W. 21 (1923), as supporting her contention that Homer Eggemeyer’s separate property may be transferred to her. The husband and father in that divorce action owned one hundred acres as his separate property which was also the family homestead. It was the homestead interest not the land itself, that was granted the wife and two children of the marriage “during the balance of the natural life of the plaintiff (mother).” The lands were adjudged the property of the husband, and the decree was that “Possession of said land to revert to said defendant, J. G. Hedtke at the termination of said homestead rights as herein provided. . . . ” In that case, the reason for the rule was also expressed; it was the husband’s burden to support his family. The court was overbroad in its statement that the divorced husband owed family obligations to the divorced wife as distinguished from their children, but the court clearly recognized the limitations upon divesting title:
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hedtke v. Hedtke and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace