Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 Ind. 551 - McDaniel v. McDaniel

McDaniel v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
2
states following
August 1996
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably In the Matter of Floyd Raymond Woods Appeal of Judith Jean Crabb Objecting, Loeb v. Loeb (1973)

12 federal appellate · 66 state decisions

5001964197019801990decided

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 Shula v. Shula · Brown v. Kistleman · Burk v. Anderson · 136 Ind. App. 148 - Miller v. Sparks · Bitner v. Bitner

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

  1. “[T]he reasonableness of attorney fees is ... a matter regarding which the judge, being a lawyer, may take judicial notice. Therefore, this court will not disturb the trial court’s award as to attorney fees, unless there is a clear abuse of discretion, (emphasis supplied)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Alimony is awarded in Indiana for the purpose of making a present and complete settlement of the property rights of the parties. It does not include future support for the wife, nor is it intended as a medium for providing financial compensation for injured sensitivities during marriage. The primary factor in fixing the alimony is the existing property of the parties. However, other facts which the court may consider are the source of the property, the income of the parties and the nature of the abuse inflicted upon the wife, — particularly if that abuse affected the earning capacity of the wife and would have been the basis for an action in damages except for the fact of the marriage.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Neither is a wife entitled to alimony as a method of future support where substantial alimony in lieu of such support is awarded out of the estate of the husband as in the Shula case.””
    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.