Kendrick v. Kendrick’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1995
9 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 Fischer v. Fischer · 160 Pa. Super. 438 - Commonwealth v. Berfield · Courtney v. Courtney · Davis Ex Rel. Grant v. Davis · Littleton v. Littleton
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We are of the opinion that the exemption provision under consideration should not be construed as applying to awards for alimony or child support for the reason that such awards are not debts of the pensioner under the rule of our cases. "In Ford v. Ford , 201 Ala. 519 , 78 So. 873 , we held that a husband could not claim exemption of his homestead against a levy of execution upon his land to enforce payment of alimony pendente lite because a decree for alimony was not a `debt contracted' within the meaning of the constitutional and statutory provisions relating to homestead exemptions. To like effect are Littleton v. Littleton , 224 Ala. 103 , 139 So. 335 ; Horan v. Horan , 259 Ala. 117 , 65 So.2d 486 ; Coon v. Coon , 264 Ala. 127 , 85 So.2d 430 . See also Ryan v. Ryan [271] Ala., [243] 123 So.2d 102 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte Griggs
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.