Hereid v. Hereid’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1992
6 state decisions
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 Brown v. Brown · Garrett v. Garrett · Kennedy v. Kennedy · Broderick v. Broderick · Wilson v. Wilson
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is necessary for the complainant to establish the existence of habitual resort to intoxicants. An occasional, nonhabitual consumption of alcohol, even to excess, does not make the consumer an habitual drunkard within the divorce laws. Bizer v. Bizer, 110 Iowa, 248 , 81 N. W. 465 ; Moor v. Moor, 211 Ala. 56 , 99 So. 316 ; Acker v. Acker, 22 App. D. C. 353; Broderick v. Broderick, 191 La. 492 , 186 So. 5 , 120 A. L. R. 1173. The condition contemplated by the statute is the fixed habit of frequently drinking intoxicating liquors to excess., Walton v. Walton, 34 Kan. 195 , 8 P. 110 ; Brown v. Brown, 38 Ark. 324 ; Kennedy v. Kennedy, 101 Fla. 239 , 134 So. 201 . The indulgence must be so extensive that an enfeebled will, broken down through frequent acquiescence, either prevents or does not desire any active resistance to alcoholic opportunity. Magahay v. Magahay, 35 Mich. 210 ; Page v. Page, 43 Wash. 293 , 86 P. 582 , 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 914, 117 A. S. R. 1054. This does not mean that the alleged drunkard must ‘have more drunken than sober hours’ (Wilson v. Wilson, 128 Ark. 110 , 193 S. W. 504, 505 ); or ‘become intoxicated every day, or even every week’ (McBee v. McBee, 22 Or. 329, 333 , 29 P. 887, 889 , 29 A. S. R. 613); nor ‘that drunkenness shall be at regular periods, nor occur every time one has access to intoxicating liquors’ O’Byrne v. O’Byrne, 211 Ala. 450 , 100 So. 781 . ‘One may refrain from drink for a considerable time and yet be an habitual drunkard.’ Bill v. Bill, 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Melheim v. Melheim
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.