Melvin v. Melvin’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.2d 39 · 1942
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 7 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently October 1990 · most notably 63 Cal. 2d 481 - Goodwine v. Superior Court (1965), Zouck v. Zouck (1990)
37 federal appellate · 7 district · 27 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 Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd. · Rogers v. Guaranty Trust Co. · Baltimore or Co v. Kepner · Miles v. Illinois Central Railroad · Automatic Devices Corporation v. Sinko Tool & Manufacturing Company
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * [T]he public policy of the Distiict of Columbia does not require its courls to take jurisdiction of a matrimonial dispute between two persons who are neither domiciled in the District nor even residents thereof; especially where there is no showing that the welfare of children, rights of property, or other public interests, in the District are in any way affected.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . [T]he District Court’s undoubted jurisdiction ... of maintenance suits between nonresidents domiciled elsewhere should not be exercised unless unusual circumstances justify trial here. ...” [76 U.S.App.D.C. at 57, 129 F.2d at 40 ] [Emphasis supplied]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whenever any husband shall fail or refuse to maintain his wife * * * although able to do so * * * the court, upon proper application, may decree, pendente lite and permanently, that he shall pay reasonable sums periodically for the support of such wife * * * and the court may decree that he pay suit money, including counsel fees, pendente lite and permanently, to enable plaintiff to conduct the case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lee v. Lee
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.