Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 182 F.1d 330 - Sprung v. Morton

Sprung v. Morton’s Empirical Analysis

182 F. 330 · 1909

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
May 1920
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Ex Parte Milligan · Lau Ow Bew v. United States · Lem Moon Sing v. United States · Ex parte Yerger · People of the State of Illinois Ex Rel John McNichols v. James Pease

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.

  1. ““Such formal provisions may be construed as merely directory, ins'tead of being treated as destructive of the common-law .right to form the marriage relation by words of present assent, and this is the rule generally adopted, in construing statutes regulating marriage. Whatever directions they may give respecting its formation or solemnization, the courts have usually held a marina go good at common law to be good, notwithstanding the statutes, unless they contain express words of nullity. This construction is not precluded by the' fact that the statute in question imposes a penalty or even though the parties themselves may be punished criminally.” 18 R. O. L. 398, and cases there cited.”
    1 later decision 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.