Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 VA 457 - Morris v. Morris

Morris v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 5 Va. App. 446 - Westbrook v. Westbrook (1988), 1 Va. App. 118 - Parra v. Parra (1985)

2 federal appellate · 55 state decisions

22019751980199020002010decided

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 Paul v. Paul · Hammers v. Hammers · McLoughlin v. McLoughlin · Carter v. Carter

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

  1. “Any court may affirm, ratify and incorporate by reference in its ... decree of divorce ... any valid agreement between the parties, or provisions thereof, concerning the conditions of the maintenance of the parties, or either of them and the care, custody and maintenance of their minor children, or establishing or imposing any other condition or consideration, monetary or nonmonetary.... Where the court affirms, ratifies and incorporates by reference in its decree such agreement or provision thereof, it shall be deemed for all purposes to be a term of the decree, and enforceable in the same manner as any provision of such decree.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “prompt resolution of disputes concerning the maintenance and care of minor children.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “requested that the trial court enter spousal and child support orders that varied from the amounts set forth in the written agreement.” In the transcript of the parties’ ore tenus hearing in June 2005, wife's counsel below also referenced husband's November 2004 "motion to change support.” The motion is further referenced in at least two notices filed with the court for hearing argument on the motion. 2 . "The purpose of [Code § 20-109.1] is to facilitate enforcement of the terms of an incorporated [PSA] by the contempt power of the court.”
    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.