Thomas Ex Rel. Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘It is true that one State cannot directly modify the provisions of a divorce decree of a sister State relating to child support. However, the State, upon gaining jurisdiction of the husband in personam, may enter a new order for child support which increases the amount that would have been payable prospectively under the divorce decree where the divorce court has the power to do so; and the State may declare that in this respect the decree of the divorce court shall be superseded by the new order. The full faith and credit clause does not forbid this result; the foreign decree has no constitutional claim to a greater effect outside the State than it has within the State.’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 91 N.C. App. 432 - Morris v. Morris · Parker v. Parker

2. ““Broadly stated, the rule in respect to foreign judgments and decrees is that one state may not modify or alter the judgment or decree of a sister state, because under the provisions of Section 1, Article IV, of the United States Constitution, full faith and credit must be given to it as it stands. However, from a study of the decisions it will be seen that upon one theory or another the courts of many states have permitted suits to read-judicate the extent of parental liability for support of minor children domiciled within the state, even when a provision for child support has been incorporated in a prior sister state’s decree. While recognizing the general rule that foreign decrees as a class are res judicata of the matters involved for all time in the future, the courts make a distinction in respect to orders or decrees for child support when by the law of the state of rendition such orders are subject to change. Decrees for child support and custody are usually regarded, in fact, as being impermanent in character, and hence, by their very nature, are res judicata of the issues only so long as the facts and circumstances of the parties remain the same as when the decree was rendered. Goodman v. Goodman, 194 A. 866 , 15 N. J.Misc. 716; Setzer v. Setzer, 251 Wis. 234 , 29 N.W.2d 62 ; Turnage v. Tyler, 183 Miss. 318 , 184 So. 52 , and authorities hereinafter cited. Compare Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469 , 149 So. 483 .””

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

3. ““ ‘So far as jurisdiction over the defendant is concerned, the cause of action differs in no respect from a creditor’s cause of action for collection of an ordinary debt. * * * “ ‘The common-law obligation of a man to support his wife follows him wherever he goes, and if he comes to New Jersey he is liable also for the support of his children under our statutory provisions. If this court secures jurisdiction over his person, or seizes his property located in this State, it may enforce both of these obligations against his person or his property as the case may be, whether wife or children be domiciled in New Jersey or elsewhere. . . . ’ ””

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