Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 263 SW2D 911 - McClain v. McClain

McClain v. McClain’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 1982
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1982

6 state decisions

301953196019701980decided

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 Heinrich v. Heinrich · Woodall v. Woodall · James v. James · Hensley v. Hensley · Mewbern v. Mewbern

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.

  1. “‘Appellant contends, under the rules announced in the two cases cited, that the power and authority of the trial court was limited to making a division of the rents thereafter accruing from the property in question between appellant and appellee. This would be true with reference to any lands not embraced in the homestead, but not as to homestead land. There is nothing on the face of the record to show that the five-acre tract in question was not a homestead, so we must indulge the presumption that the testimony reflected that fact. This presumption brings the case clearly within the rule announced in Woodall v. Woodall, 144 Ark. 163 , 221 S. W. 463 , to the effect that courts may award to the innocent party in divorce suits the possession, for a limited time, or absolutely (meaning for life), of a homestead held by entirety.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"Appellant argues that the trial court erred in directing appellee to pay him only $25.00 per month as his half of the rental value of the real estate (2 acres) which they own as tenants by the entirety and was occupied as their homestead, and says that there is no evidence as to rental value of this property and that the court’s action was arbitrary. We do not agree.”
    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.