Jermain v. Jermain’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. ““It has long been recognized that the public, as well as the parties to the proceedings, has a deep interest in divorce actions. This is recognized in White v. White, 167 Wis. 615 , 168 N. W. 704, 707 , where the court said: ‘In divorce actions, in which the state has such a substantial, well-recognized interest, a court is not confined in its disposition of them to the facts as they existed at the time of the commencement of the action merely, but it may take cognizance, under proper pleadings, of what is done by either or both parties thereto during the time it is pending before it.’ “And again in Subacz v. Subacz, 183 Wis. 427 , 198 N. W. 372, 374 , the court said: ‘The duty of representing the interests of the public vests, not only in the divorce counsel, but also in the court; in fact, before the passage of the statutes creating the office of divorce counsel, such entire duty vested in the court. Notwithstanding the statutes above referred to, and all of the precautionary measures contained therein, a default judgment of divorce does not stand upon the same plane as a judgment in an ordinary civil action, and the rule still obtains, in a somewhat modified degree, that a default judgment of divorce will be vacated upon slight showing. * * * ’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Puterman v. Puterman