King v. King’s Empirical Analysis
1856
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2006
23 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.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * does not, however, forbid the rendition of such decree when they do not constitute the only evidence, but are proved in conjunction with other circumstances and conduct, which confirm or tend to confirm them, and repel the idea of collusion between the parties. A decree for divorce, rendered on confessions, and conduct, and circumstances, is not a decree `rendered on the confession of the parties', within the meaning of the Code." (Citations omitted.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Webb v. Webb · Watson v. Watson“In order to prevent collusion between the parties, in no case shall the confession of them, or either of them, be taken or received as evidence, in any case of divorce.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Watson v. Watson“Whilst, therefore, it allows their confessions to be received, it denies credit to them, whenever they are unsupported.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Watson v. Watson
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.