Sutton v. Leib’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““ ‘We have searched the numerous cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on the subject of migratory divorce for a definitive holding as to the judicial status of such divorce in the state that decreed it. It appears to be assumed that the decree is valid and binding in the state where it is rendered. Thus Mr. Justice Frankfurter remarks in his concurring opinion, Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S. 287, 307 , 63 S. Ct. 207, 217 , 87 L. Ed. 279 , “It is indisputable that the Nevada decrees here, like the Connecticut decree in the Haddock . . . case [Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562 , 26 S. Ct. 525 , 50 L. Ed. 867 ], were valid and binding in the state where they were rendered.” And Mr. Justice Murphy, concurring in Williams v. State of North Carolina, 325 U.S. 226, 239 , 65 S. Ct. 1092, 1099 , 89 L. Ed. 1577 , states that “The State of Nevada has unquestioned authority, consistent with procedural due process, to grant divorces on whatever basis it sees fit to all who meet its statutory requirements. It is entitled, moreover, to give to its divorce decrees absolute and binding finality within the confines of its borders.” And Mr. Justice Rutledge, dissenting in the same case, 325 U.S. at page 244 , 65 S. Ct. at page 1102 . . ., comments on the fact that the Nevada judgment was not voided by the decision. “It could not be, if the same test applies to sustain it as upholds the North Carolina convictions. It stands, with the marriages founded upon it, unimpeached”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Alton v. Alton