Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 W. Va. 129 - McAtee v. McAtee

174 W. Va. 129 - McAtee v. McAtee’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
9
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably D.A. v. State (2002), 176 W. Va. 378 - Lemley v. Barr (1986)

28 state decisions

140198419902000decided

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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Shaffer v. Heitner · May v. Anderson · 167 W. Va. 59 - Garska v. McCoy · 35 Wash. App. 822 - Hudson v. Hudson

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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the only thing the Court decides ... is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Ohio, in disposing of the custody of children in Ohio, ... to accept ... the [custody] disposition made by Wisconsin [over the mother]. The Ohio Supreme Court felt itself so bound. This Court does not decide that Ohio would be precluded from recognizing, as a matter of local law, the disposition made by the Wisconsin court. For Ohio to give respect to the Wisconsin decree would not offend the Due Process Clause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “it is widely acknowledged that Mr. Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion permitting states to recognize foreign custody decrees rendered without personal jurisdiction over an absent parent is the better rule of law”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “We do not suggest that jurisdictional doctrines other than those discussed in text, such as the particularized rules governing adjudications of status, are inconsistent with the standard of fairness.”
    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.