Ratliff v. Ratliff’s Empirical Analysis
1904
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1928
2 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Grove v. Grove · Jones v. Jones' Ex'or
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court has held that a husband is not entitled to curtesy in the equitable separate estate, of his wife, which he has created for her benefit; that he is excluded by the nature at the transaction. Jones v. Jones, 96 Va. T49, 32 S. E. 463 . We are of opinion that the reasons given in the case cited for excluding the husband from curtesy in the equitable separate estate, which he has created, with equal force deny his right to curtesy in lands that he has conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to her without reservation of his marital rights, where such lands constitute, as in the case at bar, statutory separate estate.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cox v. Wallace
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.