Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 COLO 295 - Eickhoff v. Eickhoff

Eickhoff v. Eickhoff’s Empirical Analysis

1902

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
3
states following
March 1970
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1970

5 state decisions

1019021910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Daniels v. Daniels · Hite v. Hite · Lea v. . Lea · Cowan v. Cowan · Eickhoff v. Eickhoff

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

  1. “Where it appears, as here, that the legal proposition presented is a debatable one, concerning which able courts have disagreed, and no binding judicial determination has been had in the jurisdiction where the point is raised, we think it should not be decided upon an application for alimony pendente lite.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.