Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 1988
18 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 Krauthoff v. Krauthoff · Adams v. Union Railroad Co. · Hopkins v. Hopkins · Jenkins v. Jenkins · Hogan v. City of La Crosse
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is every reason to believe that the defendant will again make a similar motion to modify the judgment. Since the trial court has the right to modify its judgment relating to the custody of this child whenever the interest of the child demands it (sec. 247.24, Stats.), we think that while the particular order complained of is moot, the controversy over the custody of this child is not moot and should not be so considered, and that therefore the questions raised on this appeal should receive consideration to the end that if and when this controversy is revived it may be determined upon correct principles, and upon proper procedure.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Viewing the order of the court as a modification of the judgment with respect to the custody of the child, as we are impelled to do, we think that the order was void upon jjs face for the following reasons: (1) The court did not find that the interest of the child demanded a change of custody. (2) The court did not find that neither of the parents was a fit and proper person to have the care and custody of the child. (3) The court gave the care and custody of the child to one who was not a resident of this state.” Citing Hopkins v. Hopkins, 39 Wis. 167 ; McCabe v. McCabe, 126 Wis. 154 , 105 N. W. 665 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sang v. Sang““The clear effect of the order, in our opinion, was to modify the judgment with respect to the custody of the child and to award his custody to the maternal grandfather for a period of sixty days.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sang v. Sang
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.