Yarborough v. Yarborough’s Empirical Analysis
290 U.S. 202 · 1933
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 13 district · 207 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 330 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Williams v. State of North Carolina (1945), Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield (1989)
34 federal appellate · 13 district · 207 state decisions — followed in 31 states
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 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Huntington v. Attrill · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Maynard v. Hill
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 330 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"That the character and extent of the father's obligation, and the status of the minor, are determined ordinarily, not by the place of the minor's residence, but by the law of the father's domicile."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whatever may be said of the local interest which was deemed controlling in those cases in which this Court has denied to a state judgment the same force and effect outside the state as is given to it at home, it would not seem open to serious question that every state has an interest in securing the maintenance and support of minor children residing within its own territory so complete and so vital to the performance of its functions as a government that no other state could set limits upon it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Thompson v. Thompson“It is contended that the Georgia decree is not binding upon Sadie [the child], because she was not a formal party to the suit, was not served with process and no guardian ad litem was appointed for her therein. . . . As that suit embraces within its scope the disposition and care of minor children, jurisdiction over the parents confers eo ipso jurisdiction over the minor's custody and support. [*] . . .”
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.