Jones v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2003
8 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 Reed v. Reed · Allrid v. Emory University · Clark v. Singer · Robeson v. International Indemnity Co. · Bickford v. Nolen
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.
“... We hold that the application of the interspousal immunity doctrine to wrongful death actions violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection and therefore reverse. In determining whether the classification created by the statute is constitutional as applied to wrongful death actions, we apply the rational basis test. Clark v. Singer, 250 Ga. 470 , 298 S.E.2d 484 (1983). The classification must be rationally related to some legitimate state purpose; it must “ ‘rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 76 (92 SC 251, (254) 30 LE2d 225) (1971); Bickford v. Nolen, 240 Ga. 255, 256 ( 240 SE2d 24 ) (1977).’ ” Id. 250 Ga. at 472 , 298 SE2d 484 , quoting Allrid v. Emory University, 249 Ga. 35 , 285 S.E.2d 521 (1982). There are two policy considerations that are traditionally advanced as the object of the interspousal immunity doctrine: (1) to foster marital harmony by preventing suits between spouses; and (2) to avoid fraudulent or collusive lawsuits. Robeson v. International Indemnity Company, 248 Ga. 306 , 282 S.E.2d 896 (1981). In the context of a wrongful death action, neither of these justifications for the doctrine adhere. First, and most obviously, there can be no marital harmony to foster when one spouse has died. Second, the deceased spouse cannot conspire or collude with the defendant spouse.... In su”
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.