Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 195 F.2d 774 - Dausuel v. Dausuel

Dausuel v. Dausuel’s Empirical Analysis

195 F.2d 774 · 1952

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
5
states following
September 1993
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently September 1993 · most notably Rozier v. Ford Motor Co. (1978), Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (1982)

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions

14019521960197019801990decided

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 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Central Railroad v. Director, Division of Tax Appeals of the Department of the Treasury · Kephart v. Kephart · Quarles v. Quarles

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

  1. “Appellant filed on May 11,1950 an “Amended Answer on Judgment Creditor’s Bill and to Set Aside Divorce Judgment on Ground of Fraud and for Divorce to be Granted Defendant on Grounds of Adultery. ’ ’ This pleading alleges appellee testified in the divorce proceedings that she was a faithful and dutiful wife whereas in point of fact she was and had been living in adultery with certain named individuals. It alleges also that appellee testified she did not know what her monthly earnings were, whereas actually she knew they were more than $180. We think this pleading should be construed in accordance with its expressed intention, as a cross-complaint asking annulment of the divorce on the ground it was obtained by fraud. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action . . . to set aside a judgment for fraud upon the court.”
    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.