Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 26 Utah 2d 436 - Harmon v. Harmon

26 Utah 2d 436 - Harmon v. Harmon’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2021

20 state decisions

100197119801990200020102020decided

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 5 Utah 2d 79 - Wilson v. Wilson · 24 Utah 2d 236 - Wiese v. Wiese · Duffy v. Duffy · 20 Utah 2d 329 - Bott v. Bott · 22 Utah 2d 180 - Harrison v. Harrison

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

  1. “When a decree of divorce is rendered, the court may include in it equitable orders relating to the children, property, debts or obligations, and parties. [[Image here]] The court has continuing jurisdiction to make subsequent changes or new orders for the support and maintenance of the parties, the custody of the children and their support, maintenance, health, and dental care, or the distribution of the property and obligations for debts as is reasonable and necessary.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * To accept the plaintiff’s contention that an adjudged arrearage is tantamount to a judgment in law, would in the long run tend to impair rather than to enhance the abilities of both the plaintiff and the court to accomplish the desired objective. * * * 491 P.2d at 232 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Nevertheless, it is also to be realized that there may be situations where it appears to the court that the levying upon and taking away an asset from the defendant, or the garnishment of his salary, might result in the impairment or destruction of a means of producing income, so that the long-range effect would be more likely to defeat than to achieve [the court’s] purpose of seeing that the children are provided for.”
    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.