Meeks v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 2013
13 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 Betts v. Ward · James v. James · Lehman v. Lewis · Gayle v. Pennington · Patton v. Beecher
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * The rule of laches is well understood and stated on authorities by this court in 21 Corpus Juris, p. 210, § 211, as follows: "`Laches in a general sense is the neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. More specifically, it is inexcusable delay in asserting a right; an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them; such neglect to assert a right as, taken in conjunction with lapse of time more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to an adverse party, operates as a bar in a court of equity; [ Montgomery Light Co. v. Lahey, 121 Ala. 131, 136 , 25 So. 1006 ]. * * * "`A stale demand or claim in its proper sense is one that has for a long time remained unasserted; one that is first asserted after an unexplained delay of such great length as to render it difficult or impossible for the court to ascertain the truth of the matters in controversy and do justice between the parties, or as to create a presumption against the existence or validity of the claim, or a presumption that it has been abandoned or satisfied. [ Cole v. Birmingham Union R. Co., 143 Ala. 427 , 39 So. 403 ; Ashurst v. Peck, 101 Ala. 499 , 14 So. 541 ]. * * * "`212. B. As Constituting a Defense. In General. It is inherent doctrine of equity jurisdiction that nothing less than conscience, good faith, and reasonable diligence can call courts of equi”
2 later decisions 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.