Studley v. Studley’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1974
8 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 Coon v. Coon · Milliman v. Milliman · Kosinski v. Hines · Brodsky v. Brodsky
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.
““We know of no valid reason why, at any time before judgment, a party may not in such a case waive his rights to relief and withdraw or dismiss his application therefor, whether it be a complaint or a cross-complaint. This ought to be especially true in a divorce action, since the party not at fault should not be forced to submit to a divorce against his will. The authorities so hold: Milliman v. Milliman, 45 Colo. 291 , 101 Pac. 58 , 132 Am. St. 181, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 999; Coon v. Coon, 163 Mich. 644 , 129 N. W. 12 ; Brodsky v. Brodsky, 164 Minn. 102 , 204 N. W. 915 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Forsby v. Forsby
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.