Lambrou v. Berna’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 1989 · most notably 66 Wash. 2d 780 - Davidson v. Davidson (1965), Bushnell v. Bushnell (1984)
35 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 175 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Shaffer · 39 N.J. Super. 117 - Daly v. Daly · Rosenberg v. Rosenberg · 37 N.J. Super. 106 - Pfueller v. Pfueller · 125 Cal. App. 153 - Barreiro v. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘. is remedial in nature and is to be construed liberally with reference to the object to be obtained, and every endeavor should be made by the courts to render the act operable.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The primary matter for proof is that the respondent owes a duty of support. The determination of such duty is made by the court of the responding state, not the court of the initiating state. Title 34, Section 117. The initiating state only examines the verified petition to determine if, from the matters contained therein, such duty is capable of being determined. The verified petition is not proof of such facts, as the matters contained therein were entered ex parte, without opportunity for cross examination, and thus are inadmissible as legal evidence. The finding of the court as to a duty to support must be based upon evidence given at the hearing of the case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act is of recent origin and many confusing questions of interpretation and procedure have not been resolved by judicial determination. The act is designed to enable a dependent in one state to initiate proceedings in the state of his domicile for the purpose of securing money for support from a person residing in another state who is legally liable for the support of such dependent. [Citing cases.] The law is remedial in nature and is to be construed liberally with reference to the object to be obtained, and every endeavor should be made by the courts to render the act operable. [Citing cases.]”
1 later decision 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.