Macfadden v. Muckerman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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

1. “"The rule is and has been that those issues that could or have been litigated in the proceedings themselves were not sufficient grounds to collaterally attack a decree which otherwise appears to be valid on its face. [Citations omitted] As opposed to intrinsic fraud, the bill of complaint does not, in our opinion, allege facts which would constitute extrinsic fraud such as the deceased husband’s fraudulently keeping the appellant from defending the action, keeping her in ignorance of the proceedings, or other misconduct that would deprive the wife of an opportunity to have defended the action. See 19 Fla.Jur., Judgments and Decrees, § 431.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 237 So. 2d 50 - Scales v. Scales

2. “... falsely and fraudulently claimed to be a legal resident of the State of Florida when in fact, he was a mere sojourner or visitor to this state, and that by such false and fraudulent representation, had induced a court of the State of Florida to grant him a divorce.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 383 So. 2d 280 - Groover v. Groover

3. ““ . . . The rule is. and has been that those issues that could or have been litigated in the proceedings themselves are not sufficient grounds to collaterally attack a decree which otherwise appears to be valid on its face. . . . ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Volkswagen Insurance Co.