Cahaley v. Cahaley’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably Burch v. Burch (1952), Hatcher v. Hatcher (1979)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 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 Heiman v. Phœnix Mutual Life Insurance · Wilhelm v. Wilhelm · Laird v. Laird · Scribner v. Scribner
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Finally the supreme court noted that: Defendant has been seriously prejudiced. Her substantive right of defense in a divorce action has been swept away, not through any fault of her own * * *. To suggest that the court has not the power under these circumstances to vacate the judgment and permit an answer is a denial of the court’s inherent power to administer justice and of its guardianship over marriage and divorce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where, as here, it appears that a party intends to answer in a divorce action, we feel that judgment in default should not be entered without ascertaining whether that party has changed his plans for con testing the case. * * * [C]are should be taken that a party is not deprived of his right to defend particularly when he has acted diligently and with dispatch to protect his rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While the rule on its face does not allow relief from that portion of a decree and judgment which actually dissolved the bonds of matrimony, we have allowed a party to attack the other portions of the judgment under such circumstances as amount to a fraud on the court and the administration of justice.”
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.