Ward v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 1958
6 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 Gilpin v. Gilpin · Gottlieb v. Hartman · Newman v. Bullock · Redington v. Redington · Last Chance Mining & Milling Co. v. Ames
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There are, in reality, three parties to every divorce action: The plaintiff, the defendant, and the state; and if there is any collusion or fraud between the parties, or if any facts are developed at the trial which make it inequitable or unjust for a divorce to be granted, the court must see to it that a decree for divorce is not entered. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cupples v. Cupples
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.