Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 103 Ariz. 136 - King v. Uhlmann

King v. Uhlmann’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
3
states following
February 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Hieble v. Hieble (1972), National Industries, Inc. v. Republic National Life Insurance (1982)

2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

210196819701980199020002010decided

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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Hansberry v. Lee · Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co. · Healy v. Commissioner · Porter v. Porter

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

  1. “"* * * Indispensable parties are those who have such an interest in the subject matter that a final decree cannot be made without either affecting their interest or leaving the controversy in such condition that a final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience. The test of indispensability therefore is whether the absent person's interest in the controversy is such that no final judgment or decree can be entered which will do justice between the parties actually before the court, without injuriously affecting the rights of others not brought into the action."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “If a statute creates a public office, the repeal of the statute, accompanied by the reenactment of the substance of it, does not abolish the office and substitute a new one for it; the effect is to continue the old one in force,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A conveyance or incumbrance of community property is not valid unless executed and acknowledged by both husband and wife, except unpatented mining claims____”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.