McClaugherty v. McClaugherty’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Prospect Development Co. v. Bershader (1999), West Bros. Brick Co. v. City of Alexandria (1937)
6 federal appellate · 39 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 Heflin v. Heflin · Offield v. Davis · Buchanan v. Buchanan · 29 W. Va. 732 - Beverlin v. Beverlin · Buchanan v. Buchanan
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`These decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and dicta of the distinguished judges of our own Supreme Court of Appeals, concurred in by the entire court, are each entitled to much respect. They concur in construing section 5270 to legitimize the issue of common law marriages. This construction is supported by sound reasoning from the Virginia decision. There is no Virginia authority to the contrary. 15 "`To deny the protection of this section to the innocent and unoffending offspring of common law marriages requires the most narrow and technical construction of the phrase "marriage deemed null in law,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Murphy v. Holland · Milton v. Escue““Unless the desertion and non-support statutes (§§ 19364944a) prohibit and restrict the long-established inherent jurisdiction of the equity court such jurisdiction remains unaffected by their enactment even though they provide the machinery for the punishment of a husband who deserts and fails to support his wife, leaving her destitute and in necessitous circumstances. We do not think there is any language in the statutes which could be considered as impairing or destroying the equity jurisdiction.... & % * :j« ¿fi “These statutes do not, in terms or otherwise, wipe out the other remedies of a deserted wife. They do not purport to embrace all other remedies for support which may arise, such as those under the divorce statutes and those brought under the inherent jurisdiction of an equity court for separate maintenance alone. The statutes embrace only those cases ‘arising under this act,’ which means cases in which deserted wives wish to prosecute their husbands criminally and as an incident, if found guilty, to receive their wages if they are physically able to work on the roads. It is an effective means to require them to perform their legal duty. “The statutes provide an additional and quick remedy, in cases arising under it, to punish the guilty husband for his offense and at the same time prevent the wife from becoming a public charge. They give no civil remedy.” 177 Va. at 397-98 , 14 S.E.2d at 321 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he issue of marriages deemed null in law . . . shall nevertheless be legitimate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.