Closson v. Closson’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably Cayce v. Carter Oil Co. (1980), Hendrickson v. Hendrickson (1978)
10 federal appellate · 21 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · Maynard v. Hill · Ownbey v. Morgan · John Roller v. Stephen Holly
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is clear, therefore, that the legislature may by statute make the disposition of property within the jurisdiction of the court an incident of a divorce action. It is clear, also, that our statute does this by unequivocal language. It is elementary that if a court has power over the principal matter it has power also over its incidents. It follows, as shown by the foregoing authorities, that, under the statute, the court’s jurisdiction in such a case to dispose of property is not lacking merely because the petition contains no reference thereto. The jurisdiction attaches pursuant to the statute. In this case the petition for divorce did refer to the property and pray for its disposition; but if these allegations were not necessary to an acquisition of jurisdiction to dispose of the property, we cannot see how the failure of the published notice to refer to them can be considered such a defect as would render the appropriate decree void on a collateral attack.” (p. 14.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Campbell v. Campbell“‘ ‘ The apparent theory of the statute that the right to settle questions concerning the property and children of the parties is an incident of the jurisdiction of the divorce action seems fully to be borne out by the authorities. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hopping v. Hopping
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.