McClain v. McClain’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1982
6 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 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.
“‘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 passagee.g. Yancey v. Yancey“"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 passagee.g. Yancey v. Yancey
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.