Coster v. Coster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 50 state decisions

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * But our public policy to permit the maintenance by one spouse of a suit against the other to recover damages for personal injuries does not require or authorize our courts to ignore foreign law affecting substantive rights where such law merely differs, from our own. To render the foreign law unenforceable here as contrary to-our public policy under such circumstances, it must additionally violate ‘some fundamental principle of justice, some prevalent conception of good morals, some deep-rooted tradition of' the common weal.’ Loucks v. Standard Oil Co. of New York, supra, 224 N.Y. page 111, 120 N.E. page 202; Mertz v.. Mertz, supra. The acceptance of that doctrine is general. Howard v. Howard, 200 N.C. 574, 579 , 158 S.E. 101 ;. Buckeye v. Buckeye, 203 Wis. 248 , 234 N.W. 342 ; 38 Cyc. 546-549. We cannot determine what the public policy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts should be.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norma Roberts Clement v. Atlantic Casualty Ins. Co. · Holder v. Holder