Carle v. Carle’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 405 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 417 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Montgomery v. Kennedy (1984), Bocquet v. Herring (1998)
8 federal appellate · 405 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 Embry v. Palmer · 34 Tex. Civ. App. 635 - Hodges v. Smith · Bass v. Ring · Carle v. Carle
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 417 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A litigant cannot treat a judgment as both right and wrong, and if he has voluntarily accepted the benefits of a judgment, he cannot afterward prosecute an appeal therefrom.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * As we view the problem, it is not a correct approach to its solution to classify the wife’s attorney’s fees as a necessity, and then apply the rule that necessities are primarily the obligation of the community and secondarily of the husband’s separate estate. " * * * The attorney’s fee is but a factor to be considered by the court in making an equitable division of the estate, considering the conditions and needs of the parties and all of the surrounding circumstances * * * ””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Should the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court it would become its mandatory duty to divide the estate of the parties. Article 4638 R.S.,1925. If upon another trial it should be adjudged that the property is community property, the court, for instance, might deem it just and right to award one of these lots to one party and the other two lots to the other party. Clearly, the court would have the authority to do so under the article of the statutes above mentioned by making provision for adjudicating equities.””
1 later decision 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.