Lanham v. Lanham’s Empirical Analysis
1908
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Oborn v. State (1910), Wilson v. Cook (1912)
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Van Voorhis v. . Brintnall · Pennegar v. State · Hills v. State · State v. Shattuck · Williams v. Williams
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A state undoubtedly has the power to declare what marriages between its own citizens shall not be recognized as valid in its courts, and it also has the power to declare that marriages between its own citizens contrary to its established public policy shall have no validity in its courts, even though they be celebrated in other states under whose laws they would ordinarily be valid. In this sense, at least, it has power to give extraterritorial effect to its laws. The intention to give such effect must, however, be quite clear. So the question must be, in the present case, whether our legislature by the act quoted declared a public policy and clearly indicated the intention that the law was to apply to its citizens wherever they may be at the time of their marriage.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is to make the act essentially useless and impotent and ascribe practical imbecility to the lawmaking power.”
1 later decision 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.