Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 222 LA 759 - Davidson v. Helm

Davidson v. Helm’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
September 1967
most recently cited

7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Aucutt v. Aucutt · Aucutt v. Aucutt · Otis v. Bahan · Lepenser v. Griffin · Walcup v. Honish

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

  1. ““ ‘Residence’ essential to jurisdiction in a divorce proceeding instituted under Act No. 430 of 1938 means residence de facto et animo manendi, i. e., actual residence coupled with the intention to malee the place of residence a permanent place of abode. Lepenser v. Griffin, 1919, 146 La. 584 , 83 So. 839 ; Spring v. Spring, 1946, 210 La. 576 , 27 So.2d 358 ; Walcup v. Honish, 1946, 210 La. 843 , 28 So.2d 452 and Annotation 106 A.L.R. 6 , 10.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““To me this simply means that the parties to the marriage contract must live separate and apart for a period of two years, and that the party instituting the suit must bring the action in the court of his residence within this state, provided such residence has been continuous within the jurisdiction of that court for a period of two years.””
    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.