Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 300 SW2D 394 - McCarty v. McCarty

McCarty v. McCarty’s Empirical Analysis

1957

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
August 1999
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 1999 · most notably Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp. (1999), Ramacciotti v. Joe Simpkins, Inc. (1968)

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

12019571960197019801990decided

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 Gardine v. Cottey · Sutter v. Easterly · Dorrance v. Dorrance · Wabash Railroad v. Mirrielees · Walton v. Van Camp

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

  1. “"* * * But for the fraud to have existed in the procurement of the judgment, it must have related, not to the propriety of the judgment itself, but to the manner in which the judgment was obtained. In other words, the fraud must have been extrinsic or collateral to the matters which either were or could have been presented and adjudicated in the original proceeding, and not merely intrinsic in the sense of having pertained to the merits of the cause upon which the judgment of the court was rendered. In short, it is not the province of this feature of equitable jurisdiction to afford the losing party a retrial of matters either tried or concluded by the original proceeding, but instead relief is limited to those instances where the fraud was of such a character as to have forestalled an opportunity for the fair submission of the controversy. * * *"”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “. . . there exists an irreconcilable conflict in the evidence on essential fact issues depending necessarily for determination on the credibility of witnesses, a situation exists wherein the application of the rule of deference to the findings and conclusions of the trial judge is especially appropriate . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.