Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 MINN 458 - Warren v. Warren

Warren v. Warren’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
January 1989
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1989 · most notably Douglas v. Willcuts (1935), 26 Cal. 2d 605 - Hough v. Hough (1945)

35 state decisions — followed in 10 states

13019121920193019401950196019701980decided

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 McAllen v. McAllen · Warren v. Warren · McAllen v. Hodge

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

  1. ““ It appears that the original judgment for alimony was based upon a stipulation of the parties, entered into pending the action, but not to facilitate the granting of the divorce, and plaintiff contends that the judgment so founded and entered became a contract between the parties, and is not subject to change by the court, except upon restoration of plaintiff to her position and rights before its entry. In this we are unable to concur. “ Stipulations and agreements of the kind, where not void by reason of having been entered into to facilitate a decree of divorce, become merged in the judgment when entered, and are not, in the absence of statute upon the subject, so far of a contractual nature as to preclude the court subsequently from changing and modifying the judgment, upon application of one of the parties. The court is not controlled by the stipulation, and may adopt or reject it as seems consistent and proper from the situation of the parties, as disclosed by the evidence on the trial. The fact that such stipulations are usually adopted by the court does not change the situation.””
    2 later decisions 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.