Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 VA 269 - Ring v. Ring

Ring v. Ring’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
5
states following
June 1995
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably Wheeler v. Wheeler (1951), Khoury v. Community Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1962)

3 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

110194619501960197019801990decided

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 Barnes v. American Fertilizer Co. · Bray v. Landergren · Isaacs v. Isaacs · Lovegrove v. Lovegrove · Gum v. Gum

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

  1. “may make such further decree as it shall deem expedient concerning the custody, visitation and support”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘The jurisdiction of divorce causes is purely statutory (2 Bish. Mar. Div. & Sep., §1231), and the court possesses no powers in such cases involving matters of property beyond those conferred by statute, with the exception of awarding alimony, which is an incident of divorce, and based upon the doctrine of the husband’s duty to maintain and support his wife.’ “This doctrine was re-affirmed in an opinion by Mr. Justice Spratley in Golderos v. Golderos, 169 Va. 469, 502 , 194 S. E. 706 . “Since this court had held that a court of equity has no power to transfer to the wife title to a specific portion of the husband’s real estate, by the same token we must hold that the trial court, because of its lack of equity jurisdiction, had no power to impound the stock of appellant.””
    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.