145 Ohio St. 5 - Caprita v. Caprita’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

58 state decisions

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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is well settled by practically all of the authorities that, upon the death of one of the parties-,to a purely divorce action, before the entry of a. final decree therein, whether .before or after the entry of an interlocutory decree or a decree nisi, the action abates with the consequence that the action may not be continued and no final decree of divorce may be entered .-thereafter,- since the object sought to be accomplished by the final decree, --that is, the dissolution of the ■marriage - relation, is already accomplished by the prior death of one of the parties, and there-is then no status of marriage upon which the final decree of divorce may operate. The result is that, notwithstanding the pending divorce action and the fact that a divorce might have been granted had no death occurred, the wife is regarded as the widow of the deceased husband, or the husband is regarded as the widower of the deceased wife, as the case may be.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peggy P. McGrew v. Charles Elliot McGrew · 375 So. 2d 415 - Pittman v. Pittman

2. “[I]f the facts justifying the entry of a decree were adjudicated during the lifetime of the parties to a divorce action, so that a decree was rendered or could or should have been rendered thereon immediately, but for some reason was not entered as such on the judgment record, the death of one of the parties to the action subsequently to the rendition thereof, but before it is in fact entered upon the record, does not prevent the entry of a decree nunc pro tunc to take effect as of a time prior to the death of the party. But if no such final adjudication was made during the lifetime of the parties, a decree nunc pro tunc may not be entered after the death of one of the parties, to take effect as of a prior date.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 115 Ohio App. 3d 229 - Driggers v. Driggers · Peggy P. McGrew v. Charles Elliot McGrew

3. ““ ‘Death after Submission — Wherever a question is presented and submitted to the court, the death of either party before the court renders the decision does not prevent the court from deciding the question so submitted. The court has jurisdiction, and in the furtherance of justice may properly cause its judgment to be entered nunc pro tunc as of the day and term when the submission was made, and when both parties were alive; whether the order should be made rests in the discretion of the Court, to be exercised only in furtherance of justice.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 20 Ohio App. 3d 191 - Miller v. Trapp