Coleman v. Coleman’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 2017
8 state decisions
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 Ward-Harrison Co. v. Kone · Hall Music Co. v. Robertson · McLean v. Randell · Hunt v. Hunt · 60 Tex. Civ. App. 389 - Dunlop v. Dunlop
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. In a divorce action where a second amended original petition is filed in lieu of all other pleadings and is made the basis for divorce, under the mandatory provisions of Article 4632 'of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas a Trial Court cannot render a divorce decree until thirty days after the filing of the amended petition. “2. Where the original petition in a divorce action is filed March 18, 1937 and a second amended original petition is filed October 20, 1937 in lieu of all other pleadings, and in the second amended original petition the plaintiff alleges that he has been a bona fide inhabitant of the state twelve months and a resident of the county six months next preceding the filing of the original petition and makes no allegation as to inhabitancy within the State and residence in the county for the seven ■months’ period between the filing of the original petition and the filing of the second amended original petition, the mandatory requirements of Article 4631 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas with respect to twelve months’ inhabitancy within the state and six months’ residence in the county next, preceding the filing of the amended petition are not complied with, and it is error for the Trial Court to grant a divorce on such a defective petition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Van Dyck v. Van Dyck
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.