Scott v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 1984 · most notably Kendrick v. Garrene (1956), 210 So. 2d 528 - Spizer v. Dixie Brewing Co. (1968)
40 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 Sanderson v. Frost · Saunders v. Busch-Everett Co. · Cressione v. Millet. · State Ex Rel. Parish of Plaquemines v. Baynard · Cooper v. Federal Land Bank of New Orleans
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The party against whom' judgment has been rendered can not appeal: “1. If such judgment have been confessed by him, or if he have acquiesced in the same, by executing it voluntarily.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The fact that the appellant made alimony payments and before appeal sought by rule to be relieved from the payment of any alimony does not, in our opinion, show any acquiescence whatsoever on his part in the judgment or an intention to abandon his right of appeal, and is not an admission by him that any alimony is due. Since it was necessary to make the alimony payments to avoid the risk of being punished for contempt of court because no suspensive appeal was taken from the judgment, there was no unconditional voluntary, and absolute acquiescence in the judgment. * * * It may be that the appellant was unable to make a suspensive appeal bond, and in such a case, in order to be entitled to a devolutive appeal to this court, under appellee’s theory he would have to refuse to pay the alimony and subject himself to punishment for contempt. The law does not contemplate that a party ordered to pay alimony should render himself liable to pun-íshment for contempt of court and possibly sentence to jail in order to preserve his right to a devolutive appeal.””
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.