Alton v. Alton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 6 district · 13 state decisions

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

1. ““The Constitution does not mention domicile. Nowhere does it posit the powers of the states or the nation upon that amorphous, highly variable common-law conception. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wallace v. Wallace · 85 Wash. 2d 693 - In Re the Marriage of Ways

2. ““The requirements for effecting a change of domicile by a person having legal capacity are clear and undisputed. There must be physical presence in the place where domicile is claimed and there must be the intent to make that place the home of the person whose domicile is in question.” (p. 671.) “If domicile is really the basis for a divorce jurisdiction . . . then six weeks’ physical presence without more is not a reasonable way to prove it.” (p. 672.) “The presumption must, therefore, be regarded as either an unreasonable interference by the legislative branch of the insular government with the exercise of the judicial power by the judicial branch or as an attempt by the legislature to convert the suit for divorce into what is in fact a transitory action masquerading under a fiction of domiciliary jurisdiction. We think that looked at in any of these ways the portion of the statute which provides for such a prima facie conclusion is invalid.” (p. 673.) “We think that adherence to the domiciliary requirement is necessary if our states are really to have control over the domestic relations of their citizens.” (p. 676.) “Our conclusion is that the second part of this statute conflicts with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Organic Act. Domestic relations are a matter of concern to the state where a person is domiciled. An attempt by another jurisdiction to affect the relation of a foreign domiciliary is unconstitutional even though both parties are in court”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Martin v. Martin

3. “The Supreme Court has held: “Under our system of law, judicial power to grant a divorce — jurisdiction, strictly speaking — is founded on domicil. Bell v. Bell, 181 U.S. 175 , 21 S.Ct. 551 , 45 L.Ed. 804 ; Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U.S. 14 . . . . , 23 S.Ct. 237 , 47 L.Ed. 366 . The domicil of one spouse within a State gives power to that State, we have held, to dissolve a marriage wheresoever contracted. In view of Williams v. North Carolina, supra [ 317 U.S. 287 , 63 S.Ct. 207 , 87 L.Ed. 279 (1942)], the jurisdictional requirement of domicil is freed from confusing refinements about ‘matrimonial domicil,’ see Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32, 41 , 59 S.Ct. 3, 6 , 83 L.Ed. 26 and the like. ...” Williams v. North Carolina (II), 325 U.S. 226, 229-230 , 65 S.Ct. 1092, 1095 , 89 L.Ed. 1577 (1945).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 368 F. Supp. 51 - Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel