Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 F.2d 794 - Holcomb v. Holcomb

Holcomb v. Holcomb’s Empirical Analysis

209 F.2d 794 · 1954

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
5
states following
December 1985
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently December 1985 · most notably Hawaiian Paradise Park Corp. v. Friendly Broadcasting Co. (1969), In re American President Lines, Inc. (1985)

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions

1801954196019701980decided

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 Galliher v. Cadwell · Cole v. Ralph · County of Dakota v. Glidden · Texas New Orleans Railroad Company v. Fannie Miller · Wheeler v. Wheeler

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

  1. ““It follows that a wife’s suit to assert a right in her husband’s property is distinct from and unrelated to her suit for divorce. Nevertheless two such actions may be joined, under Rule 18(a), [FRCP, 28 U.S. C.A.] * * * “ * * * in the first suit * * [there was] * * * properly joined an action for limited divorce with an action for an adjudication of property rights, but that the latter did not depend upon the former; that the denial of a limited divorce did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement con tract; and that consequently the dismissal of the suit insofar as it sought a property adjustment was a decision on the merits, under Rule 41(b). “ * * * [her] claim to specific performance of the contract was foreclosed by the dismissal of her first suit, * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In this case, agreeably to rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., the general equity powers of the court were invoked by joining in a single action prayers for a limited divorce and for adjudication of an existing dispute between the parties concerning property rights. MacLennan v. MacLennan, 1942, 311 Mass. 709 , 42 N.E.2d 838 ; Hitchcock v. Hitchcock, 1940, 373 Ill. 352 , 26 N.E.2d 108 , certiorari denied, 311 U.S. 651 , 61 S.Ct. 22 , 85 L.Ed. 417 ; Cohagen v. Cohagen, 1920, 294 Ill. 439 , 128 N.E. 494 . See Note, 93 A.L.R. 327 .”
    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.