Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 293 F.2d 884 - Sears v. Sears

Sears v. Sears’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
4
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 2018

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 12 state decisions

80196119701980199020002010decided

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 Loughran v. Loughran · Goodloe v. Hawk · Simmons v. Simmons · Ruppert v. Ruppert · Oliver v. Oliver

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

  1. “[A] court of equity, in determining whether to interpose the bar of equitable estoppel, must consider all the factors of the particular case at bar, the parties involved, the effect of the ultimate decision on third parties who are not before the court, the nature of the rights sought to be vindicated and, as well, public policy as expressed by pertinent statutes and prior judicial declarations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Any third party whose interest is in any way affected by the validity (or lack of it) of the foreign divorce remains free to contest that divorce. Thus, as against appellee’s [first] wife, no rights on behalf of appellant [second ‘wife’] could prevail; and, in the event of appellee’s death intestate, [his first wife] would be entitled to dower and her statutory share in his personalty, * * * ” ( 110 U.S.App.D.C. 407 , 410, 293 F.2d 884 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. ““The following marriages are prohibited in the District of Columbia and shall be absolutely void ab initio, without being so decreed, and their nullity may be shown in any collateral proceedings, namely; * * * “Third. The marriage of any persons either of whom has been previously married and whose previous marriage has not been terminated by death or a decree of divorce.” (Title 30, District of Columbia Code 1961, Sec. 101).”
    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.