Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1995 · most notably Hartigan v. Hartigan (1961), Self v. Self (1995)
26 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 Womack v. Womack · Johnson v. Coleman · Fletcher v. State · Carlson v. Carlson · Corney v. Corney
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Murphy was, therefore, never a resident of this State, and, as the court below properly found, a fraud was practiced upon the court in procuring the divorce in this State. % ifc ífc ‡ ‡ “ * * * Such divorces have a ‘mail-order’ appearance, and we shall not hesitate to set them aside, even though the divorced party shall have remarried before we have that opportunity ; and, however innocent the second wife may be, we cannot permit such frauds to be practiced upon the courts of this State. “At Section 469 of the chapter on Divorce and Separation in 17 American Jurisprudence, page 384, it is said that ‘Divorce decrees may be set aside because of fraud even though the rights of innocent third persons are thereby prejudiced, and hence, the-petition need not allege that no such rights have intervened.’ i{i % # ‡ “The parties to this litigation — all of them — appear to have been trifling with the jurisdiction of our courts, and we know nothing to do with them except to spew them out and to have done with them; and to leave them where they were, so far as we are concerned, when.the jurisdiction of our courts was first invoked.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hartigan v. Hartigan“Here, the naked truth is that a man who never, even for ninety days, became a resident of this state, gave an improper address, which made it impossible to notify his wife that she had been sued, and she remained in ignorance of that fact until after she had been divorced. Such divorces have a “mail-order” appearance, and we shall not hesitate to set them aside, even though the divorced party shall have remarried before we have that opportunity; and, however innocent the second wife may be, we cannot permit such frauds to be practiced upon the courts of this state.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Self v. Self
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.