Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 Tex. 489 - Wicks v. Cox

Wicks v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
12
states following
December 2002
most recently cited

113 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably In the Interest of J.F.C. (2002), Lewelling v. Lewelling (1990)

113 state decisions — followed in 12 states

3501948195019601970198019902000decided

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 Legate v. Legate · Finlay v. Finlay · State Ex Rel. Wood v. Deaton · White v. White · Lanning v. Gregory

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

  1. ““ * * * So, whatever doubt may have once existed on the subject, the rule now is that technical legal domicile of the child in this state is not a sine qua non of child custody jurisdiction on the part of our courts.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * Whether our courts have and will exercise jurisdiction depends in part upon domicile and also upon broader considerations, including among other things the physical presence before the court of the child and the contesting parties, and the general situation affecting the ability of the court to form an intelligent judgment on what will be best for the child’s welfare. Here the facts show that the child and both parents were before the court; the husband is still a Texas domiciliary; most of the relevants facts occurred in Dallas, where the domicile of all of the parties had been until only a few months before the trial, and apparently all important witnesses actually were present and testified. Under these facts we think that the Texas court was in a better position to pass intelligently on the matter of the child’s welfare than the courts of Virginia, and therefore that the Texas court had jurisdiction to award custody.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.