Alves v. Alves’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
3 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably McHugh v. McHugh (1980), Combs v. Sherry-Combs (1993)
3 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1255 (§ 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Williams v. State of North Carolina · Torao Takahashi v. Fish and Game Commission · Gilbert v. David · Lau Ow Bew v. United States · Louis Weber v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A visa is a document of entry required of aliens by the United States Government and is a matter under the control of the government. It has little relevance to the question of domicile.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““By intending to remain indefinitely in the District of Columbia appellee negatived a definite intent to return to Great Britain. As best it might be argued ap-pellee had a floating intention to return to Great Britain conditioned upon an uncertain event — his dismissal from [his employment] — which event may never occur. But such a floating intention to return to Great Britain is not sufficient to require a holding that appellee was still domiciled in Great Britain. Only if appellee had a definite and fixed intention of returning to Great Britain could it be said he did not abandon his English domicile. There is no evidence to indicate appellee definitely intended to return to Great Britain but rather all the evidence leads to the conclusion that ap-pellee intended to remain in the District of Columbia for an indefinite time. . ” [/d. at 115-116; footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The fact that appellee entered the United States on a nonimmigrant visa . does not preclude a finding that appellee could become domiciled in the District of Columbia. * * ifc ¡fc * . At best it might be argued appellee had a floating intent to return to Great Britain conditioned upon an uncertain event — his dismissal from the I.M.F. —which event may never occur. But such a floating intention to return to Great Britain is not sufficient to require a holding that appellee was still domiciled in Great Britain.” (footnotes omitted). (Id., at 115-116).”
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.