Lynde v. . Lynde’s Empirical Analysis
1900
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 114 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1985 · most notably John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock (1906), Sistare v. Sistare (1910)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 99 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Kamp v. . Kamp · The People v. . Baker · Forrest v. . Forrest · Rigney v. . Rigney
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 114 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Willi respect to how iar the Supreme Court of this state will enforce the final decree of the Now Jersey court, 1 think the determination of the Appellate Division to be quite correct. The action was to recover upon a final decree of the court of another state, which, being rendered with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is to be deemed conclusive, in so far as it adjudged the defendant to be indebted to the plaintiff at Hie date of its rendition. The proceeding in chancery had terminated in an unconditional decree that the defendant must pay a definite sum of money, established as a debt against him, and, therefore, it had extra-territorial value and force. (Wharton Oonfl. Laws, § 804.) As a debt of record against the defendant the courts of this state should give it full credit and effect; but as to its other provisions for future alimony and for equitable remedies to enforce compliance, 1 do not think we should say that it fails within the rule of the Federal Constitution. I do not think that the courts of this state should give effect to the decree by enforcing any of the collateral remedies, which the prevailing party may be entitled to in New Jersey and which the subsequent order gave to her. So far as it made provision for the payment of alimony in the future, it remained subject to the discretion of the chancellor and lacked eonclusiveness of character. The chancellor’s act Ion was not final on the subject. As he observed in Lynde v. Lynde (supra), referr”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Israel v. Israel““With respect to how far the Supreme Court of this state will enforce the final decree of the New Jersey court, I think the determination of the Appellate Division to be Quite correct. The action was to recover upon a final decree of the court of another -state, which,- being rendered with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, is to be deemed conclusive in so far as it adjudged the defendant to be indebted to the plaintiff at the date of its rendition.” ... .”
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.