Thompson v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
164 F.2d 705 · 1947
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 1982
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Marshall v. Marshall · Vanderhuff v. Vanderhuff · McLarren v. McLarren
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellant contends that since the appellee was guilty of misconduct, he should have been denied relief. We held in Vanderhuff v. Vanderhuff [ 79 U.S. App. D.C. 153 , 144 F. (2d) 509] that recrimination is not an absolute bar to a divorce. We pointed out, however, that special circumstances might exist where this defense would be relevant in a determination as to which party was entitled to a divorce in a case where both sought a decree, and so evidence as to appellee's misconduct was relevant here. The court admitted it, and the record shows that it was carefully considered. The court had before it the complaint, the cross complaint, and all the evidence which either party cared to present. It reached the conclusion which eventuated in the judgment for the husband. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this conclusion was erroneous as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bissell v. Bissell““Errors and irregularities occurring at the oral examination in the manner of taking the depositions, in the form of the questions or answers, * * * and errors of any kind which might be obviated, removed, or cured if promptly presented, are waived unless seasonable objection thereto is made at the taking of the deposition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nutterville v. McLam
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.