Junghans v. Junghans’s Empirical Analysis
112 F.2d 212 · 1940
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1985 · most notably Miller v. Miller (1941), T.V.T. Corp. v. Basiliko (1958)
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 Chicago Ry Co v. Schendel Same · Sistare v. Sistare · Loughran v. Loughran · Roche v. McDonald · Suydam v. Williamson
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The District Code authorizes the court to award counsel fees “during the pendency of a suit for divorce.” It also provides that “after a decree of divorce in any case granting alimony and providing for the care and custody of children, the case shall still be considered open for any future orders in those respects.” An order for the payment of counsel fees, in connection with the collection of alimony and support, is an order “in those respects.” It follows that the case was “open” for the purposes of this order. [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Smith
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.