Hailey v. Hailey’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 145 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably Cockerham v. Cockerham (1975), Eggemeyer v. Eggemeyer (1977)
3 federal appellate · 145 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 Carle v. Carle · Chace v. Gregg · Houston Oil Co. v. Kirkindall · Puckett v. Puckett · Lewis v. Lewis
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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court pronouncing a decree of divorce shall also decree and order a division of the estate of the parties in such a way as the court shall deem just and right, having due regard to the rights of each party and their children, if any. Nothing herein shall be construed to compel either party to divest himself or herself of the title to real estate.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * the statute puts the duty on the trial court to make a partition of the community property whenever the pleadings of either party show the existence of such property. The trial court shall consider all the facts and circumstances shown by the evidence and then partition the community property, both personal and real estate, in such manner as may be just and right.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Klein v. Klein · Gunther v. Gunther““By the provisions of Article 4638, R.C.S.1925, the court pronouncing the decree of divorce has jurisdiction, in the divorce action, to decree a division of the estate of the parties in such a way as the court may deem just and right, having due regard for the rights of each party and their children, if any. This statute does not allow the divorce court to compel either party to the divorce action to divest himself or herself of the title to realty. As we construe it, Article 4638, supra, is mandatory in its provisions, * * *. Also, under this statute the division of the property does not have to be equal. The court can be controlled by what the facts may lead him to believe is just and right.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McCauley v. McCauley
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.