Mosqueda v. Mosqueda’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2014
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Veazey v. City of Durham · Silver v. Silver · Boudreau v. Baughman · 115 N.C. App. 377 - Jeffreys v. Raleigh Oaks Joint Venture · State v. Fayetteville Street Christian School
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he mere fact that the law of the forum differs from that of the other jurisdiction does not mean that the foreign statute is contrary to the public policy of the forum. Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145 , [ 52 S.Ct. 571 , 76 L.Ed. 1026 ] (1932). To render foreign law unenforceable as contrary to public policy, it must violate some prevalent conception of good morals or fundamental principle of natural justice or involve injustice to the people of the forum state. Ellison v. Hunsinger, [ 237 N.C. 619 ,] 75 S.E.2d 884 ([]1953); Howard v. Howard, [ 200 N.C. 574 ,] 158 S.E. 101 ([]1931). This public policy exception has generally been applied in cases such as those involving prohibited marriages, wagers, lotteries, racing, gaming, and the sale of liquor. Howard v. Howard, [ 200 N.C. 574 ] 158 S.E. 101 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Smith
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.