McDuff v. McDuff’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2013
10 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 Rice v. McMullen · Hume v. Inglis · Burns v. Burns · Salmon v. Bishop
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the defendant in any proceeding in a chancery court be shown by sworn bill or petition, or by affidavit filed, to be a non-resident of this state * * * and the post office of such defendant be stated in the bill * * * the clerk * * * shall promptly prepare and publish a summons to such party to appear and defend the suit, on a rule day in vacation * * * or on the first day of the next regular term * * * “ * * * Where the post office address of the defendant is given the street address, if any, shall also be stated unless the bill, petition, or affidavit above mentioned, aver that after diligent search and inquiry said street address cannot be ascertained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. High v. High“(1) The chancery court did not have jurisdiction of the suit since proper process was not had upon the defendant, and (2) the court below did not have jurisdiction of the suit for divorce in that neither the complainant nor defendant was an actual bona fide resident citizen of the state of Mississippi for one year next preceding the commencement of the suit. ( 252 Miss. at 461 , 173 So.2d at 419 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Since we are of the opinion that process was not had upon the defendant in accordance with the law, we do not reach the second assignment of error. The cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial since the defendant is properly before the court under the terms and provisions of Mississippi Code Annotated section 1882 (1956). ( 252 Miss. at 464 , 173 So.2d at 421 .)”
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.