Matilda Von Ellert Sistare v. Horace Randall Sistare’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 330 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 373 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Simpson v. Shepard (1913), Barber v. Barber (1944)
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 330 state decisions — followed in 50 states
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 Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · Charles Lynde v. Mary W Lynde Mary W Lynde · 3 E.H. Smith 520 - Wetmore v. . Wetmore · Livingston v. . Livingston · Erkenbrach v. . Erkenbrach
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 373 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Indeed, as in principle, if it be that the power to vary or modify operates retroactively and may affect past-due installments so as to relieve of the obligation to pay such installments, it would follow, in the nature of things, that the power would exist to increase the amount allowed, it is additionally impossible to imply such authority in the absence of provisions plainly compelling to such conclusion. Beyond all this, when it is considered that no provision is found looking to the repayment by the wife of any installments which had been collected from the husband, in the event of a retroactive reduction of the allowance, it would seem that no power to retroactively modify was intended. ’ ’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . where a decree is rendered for alimony and is made payable in future instalments the right to such instalments becomes absolute and vested upon becoming due, and is therefore protected by the full faith and credit clause, provided no modification of the decree has been made prior to the maturity of the instalments, . . . this general rule, however, does not obtain where by the law of the state in which a judgment for future alimony is rendered the right to demand and receive such future alimony is discretionary with the court which rendered the decree, to such an extent that no absolute or vested right attaches to receive the instalments ordered by the decree to be paid, even although no application to annul or modify the decree in respect to alimony had been made prior to the instalments becoming due.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hamilton v. Hamilton““And it is, we think, clear from the context of the opinion, that the court'held that the decree in favor of Mrs. Barber operated to cause an indebtedness to arise in her favor as each instalment of alimony fell due, and that a power to modify, if exerted, could only operate prospectively.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stout v. Stout
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.