Harmon v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1991
20 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 125 Cal. App. 2d 154 - Smith v. Smith · Whittlesey v. Bellah · 131 Cal. App. 2d 764 - Smith v. Smith
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To: The Superior Court of the State of Washington In and for King County: It is hereby certified that the complaint filed herein on the 26th day of April, 1962 by Ethel: C. Davidson, Plaintiff, against Martin Davidson, Defendant, alleges facts from which it may be determined that the Defendant Martin Davidson owes a duty of support to Ethel C. Davidson; that said Complaint alleges that said Defendant resides at . . . Seattle, Washington; that said Complaint alleges that Defendant is not supporting said Plaintiff ... Wherefore It Is Hereby Ordered that this Certificate, together with certified copies of the Complaint, be transmitted to the Court of King County, Washington, and it is requested that the proper Court of the responding state obtain jurisdiction of the said Defendant Martin Davidson and his property and proceed to adjudicate said Complaint.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Acts in question [Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement Acts] are not limited to cases where an obligor flees the jurisdiction of an initiating state.”
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.