Hooke v. Hooke’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently November 1980 · most notably Hartigan v. Hartigan (1961), Levine v. Levine (1955)
55 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 Wilkerson v. Wilkerson · Martin v. Martin · Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. · Keenum v. Dodson · Denson v. Realty Mortgage Co.
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no doubt of the general jurisdiction of a court of equity to grant relief against fraud. The jurisdiction extends, as has been held repeatedly by this court, to the vacation of decrees obtained by fraud in courts of equity, as well as to judgments of courts of law. It likewise is well established in this jurisdiction that decrees entered in divorce cases are subject to vacation and annulment on the same grounds as other decrees. Smith v. Smith, supra ( 243 Ala. 488 , 10 So.2d 664 ); Miller v. Miller, 234 Ala. 453 , 175 So. 284 ; Wright v. Wright, 230 Ala. 35, 159 So. 220 ; Ex parte Kay, 215 Ala. 569 , 112 So. 147 . “To sustain a bill to vacate the judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction for fraud, the bill must allege the facts showing that the fraud was in the concoction or procurement of the judgment or decree and must be extrinsic or collateral to the matter which was tried and determined by them. Sims v. Riggins, 201 Ala. 99 , 77 So. 393 ; Miller v. Miller, supra ( 234 Ala. 453 , 175 So. 284 ); Jones v. Henderson, 228 Ala. 273 , 153 So. 214 . However, this has been held to include false and fraudulent statements in a petition, which were necessary to invoke the power or jurisdiction of the court to render the decree under attack. Bolden v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co., 215 Ala. 334 , 110 So. 574 , 49 A.L.R. 1206 ; Keenum v. Dodson, 212 Ala. 146 , 102 So. 230 ; McGathey v. Thompson, 224 Ala. 163 , 138 So. 841 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he rule is well settled that perjury or false swearing in the course of litigation is not per se a ground of equitable interference in a judgment or decree”
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.