Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Va. App. 16 - Boyd v. Boyd

2 Va. App. 16 - Boyd v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

2 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably 52 Va. App. 833 - Fadness v. Fadness (2008), 44 Va. App. 287 - Cirrito v. Cirrito (2004)

2 district · 30 state decisions

1401986199020002010decided

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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Watkins v. Watkins · Bailey v. Bailey

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

  1. ““The basis of every right of recovery under our system of jurisprudence is a pleading setting forth facts warranting the granting of the relief sought. It is the sine qua non of every judgment or decree. No court can base its decree upon facts not alleged, nor render its judgment upon a right, however meritorious, which has not been pleaded and claimed---- Pleadings are as essential as proof, the one being unavailing without the other. A decree cannot be entered in the absence of pleadings upon which to found the same, and if so entered it is void.... Every litigant is entitled to be told by his adversary in plain and explicit language what is his ground of complaint or defense____ The issues in a case are made by the pleadings, and not by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he distinction between a cause of action which seeks merely to terminate a marriage and one which also seeks spousal support involves fundamental due process issues which govern permissible means of service of process and determine the breadth and limitations of a court’s power to grant the relief requested. A divorce suit in which the pleadings seek only to terminate a marriage is an in rem proceeding, but a proceeding seeking the entry of a decree for spousal support and maintenance is in personam. Bailey v. Bailey, 112 Va. 18, 21 , 200 S.E. 622, 623 (1939). For us to hold that a pleading which seeks a divorce without requesting spousal support nevertheless empowers a court to award support would constitute an unwarranted modification of the nature of the cause of action, with potentially far-reaching effects. We decline to do so.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is firmly established that no court can base its judgment or decree upon facts not alleged or upon a right which has not been pleaded and claimed. “Pleadings are as essential as proof, and no relief should be granted that does not substantially accord with the case as made in the pleading.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.