State Ex Rel. Cahn v. Mason’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably 207 So. 2d 507 - Howell v. Howell (1968), 413 So. 2d 749 - Lamm v. Chapman (1982)
30 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.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" The Bank was not a party to the suit nor was the Bank a party to the agreement, so far as the record shows. That part of the decree requiring the payment to the Bank of $50 with accrued interest on the notes therein referred to to be made on the 15th day of each and every month thereafter was simply a decree requiring Albert B. Cahn to pay a debt which he was already obligated to pay. It was not alimony, nor was it suit money. The position of the Bank has not been changed either by the agreement between the parties thereto, nor by the decree of the Court in regard to the payment of the money to the Bank. Neither was the obligation of Cahn to the Bank modified or changed by the agreement or by the decree. Section 16 of the Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Florida, provides: `No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud.' The decree in regard to the payment of the money to the Bank was not based upon any marital duty of the husband to the wife. It was based upon civil liability, although it is true that the liability appears to have had its origin in financial transactions between the husband and wife and in financial transactions between the husband and wife on the one part and the Bank on the other part. The decree in this regard constituted no more than the adjudication of a civil liability to a party who was not a party to the suit and, therefore, was not bound by it. We have considered the cases cited in brief for the respondent Judge but do not”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“in restitution to the [wife] of sums of money dissipated from her estate during the existence of their marriage”
2 later decisions 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.