120 Ind. App. 1 - Carson v. Carson’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2004 · most notably Corbridge v. Corbridge (1952), 166 Ind. App. 409 - Linton v. Linton (1975)
31 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 Harwood v. Harwood · Taylor v. Altgelt · Hutchinson v. Wood · 119 Ind. App. 46 - King v. King · 78 Ohio App. 324 - Kintner v. Kintner
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The obligation under the contract is not one of reimbursement to the wife for the expenses incurred to her in maintaining and supporting the son and nothing else. The obligation does not spring into existence only upon a showing by the appellee that she has expended certain sums in maintaining and supporting the boy. That does not mean, nor does she claim, that she would be entitled to retain for her own use and benefit the full sum specified in the contract to the exclusion of her son, the other beneficiary; but the fact that she would have no right to the sole use and benefit of the full instalments does not impair her right to collect the entire amount. With respect to any benefits intended for the boy, her position would be that of a Trustee charged with the duty both legal and moral to affect collection so as to make available to the boy the benefits intended for him. Carson, 89 N.E.2d at 558-59 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matter of Henady““An agreement of the parties as to the custody of their children made previous to a decree for divorce will not necessarily control the decision of the court. . . . Where such an agreement is conducive to the general welfare of the children, it may be incorporated into the decree and enforced, but the court’s power subsequently to modify the decree as to custody of the children is not thereby abridged. . . .” 120 Ind. App. at 8-9 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Buchanan v. Buchanan
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.