Johnston v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Anne Arundel County Board of Education v. Norville (2005), Horsey v. Horsey (1993)
40 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 MPC, Inc. v. Kenny · 42 Cal. 2d 55 - Flynn v. Flynn · Alvey v. Alvey · Gardine v. Cottey · Hamilos v. Hamilos
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]here, as in the instant case, the agreement provides that it shall be incorporated but not merged in the decree, it is patent that the parties did not intend merger and the agreement survives as a separate and independent contractual arrangement between the parties. On the other hand, where ... the agreement does not include a non-merger clause and is incorporated in the decree, the agreement is superseded by the decree.” Id. at 56 , 465 A.2d 436 . (Emphasis in original).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This agreement shall be offered in any such [divorce] suit, and if acceptable to the court, shall be incorporated by reference in the decree that may be granted therein. Notwithstanding such incorporation, this agreement shall not be merged in the decree, but shall survive the same and shall be binding and conclusive on the parties for all time. Id. at 54 , 465 A.2d 436 . (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"For a period of thirty days after the entry of a judgment, or thereafter pursuant to motion filed within such period, the court shall have revisory power and control over such judgment. After the expiration of such period the court shall have revisory power and control over such judgment, only in case of fraud, mistake or irregularity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hamilos v. Hamilos
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.