Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 201 SW2D 862 - Roark v. Roark

Roark v. Roark’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
August 1999
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 1999

7 state decisions

40194719501960197019801990decided

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 Verschoyle v. Holifield · Hunt v. Jacobson · Lindquist v. Sanford · Butler v. Duffey · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rauch

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

  1. “At any stage thereof any action or proceeding in any court in which a person in military service is involved, ... as ... defendant, during the period of such service or within sixty days thereafter may, in the discretion of the court in which it is pending, on its own motion, and shall, on application to it by such person or some person on his behalf, be stayed as provided in this Act [sections 501 to 591 of this Appendix], unless, in the opinion of the court, the ability of ... the defendant to conduct his defense is not materially affected by reason of his military service.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Under this section of the Act it will be seen that a person in military service is entitled as a matter of right to a stay of proceedings in a cause in which he is a party, upon showing that he is in military service, . . . unless the opposing side or party shall make it appear that defendant’s ability to prosecute or defend is not materially impaired by such military service. There can be no question here that the ability of the defendant to conduct his defense in this cause is materially affected by reason of his military service, and to deprive him of the rights guaranteed him under the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Act, in absence of proof that his military service is used as a shield for defense or instrument of oppression, is an abuse of judicial discretion in the court’s refusing the stay or continuance of the trial . . . ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We think the trial court should have sustained the motion to stay the proceeding and continue the trial of the cause, until such time as the defendant is relieved from military service, safeguarding, if need be, the interest of the minor child for necessary maintenance and support allowances during the pendency of the suit....”
    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.