Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 206 N.Y. 341 - Cunningham v. . Cunningham

Cunningham v. . Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
12
states following
August 1970
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 1970 · most notably Davis v. Davis (1934), Maier Hanson v. Hanson (1934)

3 federal appellate · 6 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 12 states

1401912192019301940195019601970decided

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 John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · Maynard v. Hill · Livingston v. . Livingston · Kinnier v. . Kinnier · Wade v. . Kalbfleisch

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

  1. “It is undisputed that if the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant had taken place here, the public policy of New Jersey would be applicable and the plaintiff would be entitled to the annulment; and it seems clear to us that if New Jersey's public policy is to remain at all meaningful it must be considered equally applicable though their marriage took place in Indiana. While that State was interested in the formal ceremonial requirements of the marriage it had no interest whatever in the marital status of the parties. Indeed, New Jersey was the only State having any interest in that status, for both parties were domiciled in New Jersey before and after the marriage and their matrimonial domicile was established here. The purpose in having the ceremony take place in Indiana was to evade New Jersey's marriage policy and we see no just or compelling reason for permitting it to succeed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.