Paul v. Paul’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2011
12 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 In re the Estate of Cook · Leeker v. Leeker · Young Mines Co. v. Blackburn · Moulton v. Smith · Gallagher v. Irish-American Bank
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“,“A party against whom a judgment has been rendered must pursue one of the modes provided by statute, if he feels himself aggrieved, to have it modified, vacated, or set aside, and he must do so within the time and in the manner stipulated in the law. Leeker v. Leeker, 23 Ariz. 170 , citing page 177, 202 Pac. 397 . The motion to vacate the order of dismissal was filed nearly two years after the date of dismissal and long after the six months’ period had expired. The superior court lost jurisdiction after the time for appeal expired. It could not be otherwise. The effect of an opposite ruling would be practically to nullify or repeal the statutory limitation for taking appeals from judgments, and, as a precedent, result in such confusion in practice, and work such havoc in vested rights accruing under the highest judicial sanction known to the law, that we cannot approve of so obviously unjust and illogical a conclusion. And we hold that, when the effort to vacate the judgment of dismissal in this case.was made, the time to appeal having expired, it was too late to grant the relief sought. Gallagher v. Irish American Bank, 79 Minn. 226 , 81 N. W. 1057 , citing Leeker v. Leeker, 23 Ariz. 179 , 202 Pac. 397 . We conclude the court’s jurisdiction to pass on the motion to vacate is limited to that time shown- in paragraph 600, Civil Code Arizona 1913, and the order of the trial court denying the motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper and cor”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vazquez v. Dreyfus
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.