Adelaide Harding v. George F Harding’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010), Sponseller v. Sponseller. (1924)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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 Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · Gay v. Parpart · Thompson v. Maxwell · Wadhams v. Flagler Gay · Johnson v. Johnson
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are brought to consider the final question, which is: Was the decree in favor of the wife for separate maintenance entered in the Illinois case conclusive upon the husband in the courts of California of the issue of wilful desertion? That the issue of wilful desertion present in the divorce action was identical with the issue of absence without fault, presented in the Illinois maintenance .suit, is manifest. The separation asserted by the wife in her bill for separate maintenance to have been without her fault was averred to have taken place on February 1, 1890, and-such separation was stated by the husband in his answer to the bill to have been an abandonment and desertion of him. The wilful desertion charged in the complaint in this action for divorce was averred to have been committed ‘on or about the month of February, 1890, and to have been continuous thereafter.’ And the identity between the two is further demonstrated by the circumstance that the evidence taken in the Illinois case bearing upon the cause for the separation was used upon the trial in this case. The question in each suit, therefore, was whether the one separation and living apart was by reason of the fault of the wife. From the standpoint of a decree in favor of the wife in the suit for separate maintenance the issues raised and determined were absolutely identical.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vickers v. Vickers““Decrees so entered by consent cannot be reversed, set aside, or impeached by bill of review or bill in the nature of a bill of review, except for fraud, unless it be shown that the consent was not, in fact, given, or something was inserted as by consent that was not consented to.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“for further proceedings not inconsistent”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harding v. Harding
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.