White v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 1972
1 federal appellate · 17 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 Annie Andrews v. Kate H Andrews · Lanham v. Lanham · Hiecke v. Hiecke · von Bernuth v. von Bernuth · Moors v. Moors
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In divorce actions, in which the state has such a substantial, well-recognized interest, a court is not confined in its disposition of them to the facts as they existed at the time of the commencement of the action merely, but it may take cognizance, under proper pleadings, of what is done by either or both parties thereto during the time it is pending before it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““1. When a judgment of divorce from the bonds of matrimony is granted so far as it affects the status of the parties it shall not be effective until the expiration of one year from the date of the entry of such judgment; . . . “2. So far as said judgment affects the status of the parties the court shall have, power to vacate or modify the same for sufficient cause shown, upon its own motion, or upon the application of either party to the action, at any time within one year from the entry of such judgment, provided both parties are then living. ... If the judgment shall be vacated it shall restore the parties to the marital relation that existed before the entry of such judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moran v. Moran““We are satisfied, however, . . . that the order here being reviewed is appealable under sub. 2, sec. 3069, as a final order affecting a substantial right, upon summary application after judgment. Purcell v. Kleaver, 98 Wis. 102 , 73 N. W. 322 . It could not be reviewed on appeal from the judgment. McMahon v. Snyder, 117 Wis. 463 , 94 N. W. 351 .” (Page 624.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harvey v. Harvey
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.