Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 Minn. 491 - Davidner v. Davidner

Davidner v. Davidner’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently February 2016

24 state decisions

8019751980199020002010decided

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 Davis v. Davis · Bechtel v. Bechtel · Hanson v. Hanson · Wyman v. Wyman · Lusk v. Belote

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

  1. “[t]he parties cannot by their actions or agreement confer jurisdiction on the court, and an appellate court will determine the jurisdictional facts on its own motion even if neither party has raised the issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If a change of residence be for temporary purposes, and with no intention of quitting the old home, no change of domicile takes place, at least as a matter of law. It is ordinarily a question of fact depending * * * upon the purpose and intent of the change.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the union of residence and intention, and residence without intention, or intention without residence, is of no avail. Mere change of residence, although continued for a long time, does not effect a change of domicile.”
    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.