Agueda Benedicto De La Rama v. Esteban De La Rama’s Empirical Analysis
201 U.S. 303 · 1906
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk (1962), Ankenbrandt Lr Sr v. A Richards (1992)
38 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 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 Tilghman v. Proctor · Kimberly v. Arms · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · Davis v. Schwartz · Kurtz v. Moffitt
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has been a long-established rule that the courts of the United States have no jurisdiction upon the subject of divorce, or for the allowance of alimony, either as an original proceeding in chancery, or an incident of a divorce or separation, both by reason of the fact that the husband and wife cannot usually be citizens of different states so long as the marriage relation continues (a rule which has been somewhat relaxed in recent cases), and for the further reason that a suit for divorce in itself involves no pecuniary value. “But the general rule above stated has no application to the jurisdiction of the territorial courts, or of the appellate jurisdiction of this court over those courts.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While, as indicated in Simms v. Simms, the decree for alimony, although in one sense an incident to the suit for divorce, is a distinct ■and final judgment for a sum of money, and is therefore a good ground for an appeal from that part of the decree, yet, where the appeal is from the whole decree (as in this case), or even from a part of the decree, and the denial of alimony or separation of the conjugal property depends upon the evidence which bears upon the right to a divorce, we cannot determine that question without passing upon the sufficiency of the testimony authorizing or refusing the divorce. An appeal from the decree for alimony or other' property right would be of no value whatever unless the facts connected with the allowance or refusal of such right were open to review in the appellate court. Although an appeal from a part of a decree does not bring up the part not appealed from, yet, if the whole decree, must be reviewed in order to decide the appeal, such an appeal brings up the entire record. . . The case is even stronger where the appeal is taken from the whole decree.” (Citations omitted.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a matter the value of which could not be estimated in money.”
2 later decisions 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.