Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 Colo. 377 - Allison v. Allison

Allison v. Allison’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
5
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2007 · most notably In the Matter of Frank E. Cornish, Iii, Bankrupt. Donald C. Schiller v. Frank E. Cornish, III (1976), Rose v. Gedeon (In Re Gedeon) (1983)

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

10019621970198019902000decided

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 5 F. Supp. 432 - Merriman v. Hawbaker · Bieler v. Bieler · Ross v. Keith

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.

  1. ““It is obvious, under the legal principles hereinbefore set forth and the statute quoted, that it was the intent of the Legislature that an order allowing to the plaintiff money for her solicitors’ fees should be treated in exactly the same manner, stand upon the same footing, and have actually the same legal characterization and qualities as an allowance for money to buy food or groceries. All legislation in this respect springs out of the universally recognized duty of a husband to support his wife. The allowance to her for solicitors’ fees is based upon the same underlying thought as is an allowance to her to buy food, shelter, and clothing. It is fixed within the discretion of the court. It is enforceable by contempt. * * It has obviously all the qualities of an allowance for support, commonly termed ‘alimony.’ A judgment for alimony being nondischargeable, it follows that an order to pay the wife her solicitors’ fees is likewise undischargeable. It may be provable [citation], but it has none of the qualities required to make it dischargeable. The present order partakes of the qualities of judgments for penalties or fines for support of a wife or children or bastard child all of which are enforceable by contempt proceeding.””
    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.