Vanderpool v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2017
2 federal appellate · 5 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 Houston Texas Central Railroad Company v. John a Mayes · Offield v. Davis · Eldred v. Eldred · In Re Estate of Shipp · Keen v. Keen
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“So far as we have observed, it is essential, in order to legitimize issue under this statute, that there be a marriage of some kind, or the statute can have no application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts shown in this case are insufficient to prove even a common-law marriage, but clearly indicate a meretricious union.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that a common law marriage, or attempted marriage , in Virginia, is void here is settled by the case of Offield v. Davis”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. MacDougall v. Levick
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.