Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 A2D 733 - Mountjoy v. Mountjoy

Mountjoy v. Mountjoy’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
April 2001
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2001

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

8019651970198019902000decided

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 Thompson v. Thompson · Jessie Thompson v. Charles N Thompson · Yellow Cab Co. of D. C., Inc. v. Dreslin · Rommel v. West American Insurance Company

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

  1. ““* * * [Ajppellant urges that the fundamental bases for the doctrine now no longer exist and that there is a definite trend toward adoption of the minority rule eliminating the bar to any tort action between husband and wife. Any change in this long-established doctrine in the District of Columbia should be accomplished by Congressional enactment.” Mountjoy v. Mountjoy, D.C. App., 206 A.2d 733 (1965).”
    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.