Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1918
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2001 · most notably Hulett v. Hulett (1928), Courson v. Courson (2001)
34 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 Dennis v. Dennis · Evans v. Evans · Burns v. Burns · McClintock v. McClintock · Conant v. Conant
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These acts of adultery, as testified to by the witness Thomas, are denied by the defendant, and there is nothing in the record, either 'by direct testimony of witnesses, by certificate of the officer taking the deposition, or the finding of the court, showing that the witness Thomas was a credible one, or that he bore a good' character, as is required by section 2119, Kentucky Statutes; and, unless this is done in some one or more of the methods enumerated, the uncorroborated testimony of such a witness should not furnish grounds for dissolving the bonds of matrimony and destroying the law’s cherished status of the parties, and indirectly heaping disgrace and humiliation upon the defendant and her innocent children. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lewis v. Lewis
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.