John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock’s Empirical Analysis
201 U.S. 562 · 1906
Citation profile
124 federal appellate · 43 district · 585 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 891 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. (1982), Williams v. State of North Carolina (1945)
124 federal appellate · 43 district · 585 state decisions — followed in 47 states
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 Pennoyer v. Neff · United States v. Throckmorton · Maynard v. Hill · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite
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 891 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce ... [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“fiction always is a poor ground for changing substantial rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““This case does not involve the validity of a divorce granted, on constructive service, by the court of a state in which only one of the parties ever had a domicile; nor the question to what extent the good faith of the domicile may be afterwards inquired into. In this case, the divorce in Kentucky was by the court of the state which had always been the undoubted domicile of the husband, and which was the only matrimonial domicile of the husband and wife. The single question to be decided is the validity of that divorce, granted after such notice had been given as was required by the statutes of Kentucky. ****** “We are of opinion that the undisputed facts show that such efforts were required by the statutes of Kentucky, and were actually made, to give the wife actual notice of the .suit in Kentucky, as to make the decree of the court there, granting a divorce upon the ground that she had abandoned her husband, as binding on her as if she had been served with notice in Kentucky, or had voluntarily appeared in the suit. Binding her to that full extent, it established, beyond contradiction, that she had abandoned her husband, and precludes her from asserting that she left him on account of his cruel treatment. “To hold otherwise would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the husband to obtain a divorce for the cause alleged, if it actually existed. The wife not being within the state of Kentucky, if construe-tive notice, with all the precautions prescribed by the statutes ”
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.