Oltarsh v. Oltarsh’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1968
3 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 Williams v. State of North Carolina · Missouri Pac Co v. Ault · Goldstein v. Goldstein
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Substantial rights already vested'under a decree of this court may be nullified by the defendant’s impending action in view of the holding in Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287 , 63 S. Ct. 207 , 87 L. Ed. 279 ,143 A. L. R. 1273. Under such circumstances the court may intervene to ward off threatened harm. Greenberg v. Greenberg, 218 App. Div. 104 , 218 N. Y. S. 87. “Nor is the holding in Goldstein v.. Goldstein, 283 N. Y. 146 , 27 N. E. 2d 969 , determinative of this application. That decision was reached prior to the holding-in the Williams case and depended for its authority upon the validity of Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562 , 26 S. Ct. 525 , 50 L. Ed. 867 , 5 Ann. Cas. 1. Inasmuch as the Williams case has overruled the jurisdictional principles laid down in the Eaddoclc case, the threatened injury is no longer illusory. Equity may fashion its remedy to guard against the reality of harm. “The fact that no action is yet pending in Nevada does not militate against injunctive relief. The imminence of harm is no less real because impending danger has not yet ripened into a destruction of rights. Where peril exists, there the court may intervene to offer its protection. “The behavior of the defendant gives force to the plaintiff’s fear that her husband intends to create a condition which may impair her rights under the decree of separation. The dubious explanation of defendant’s presence in Eeno, Nevada; the correspondence of the lawyers and other circumstances warra”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kahn v. Kahn
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.