Kelly v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably 53 Cal. 4th 1261 - People v. Cornett (2012), U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Milburn (2003)
79 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 Standridge v. Standridge · State v. Joshua · Kilgore v. Viner · Jackson v. Yowell · Wilhelm v. McLaughlin
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) Disposition of Posttrial Motion. If a timely motion listed in section (b) of this rule is filed in the trial court by any party, the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order granting or denying a new trial or granting or denying any other such motion. Provided, that if the trial court neither grants nor denies the motion within thirty (30) days of its filing, the motion will be deemed denied as of the 30th day. A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any such motion or, if no order is entered, prior to the expiration of the 30-day period shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion or from the expiration of the 30-day period. No additional fees shall be required for such filing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We cannot accept appellant's appeal because our procedural rules, in particular ARCP Rule 58 and the amendments to Ark.R.App.P. 4, clearly indicate that an appeal filed prior to entry of final judgment is ineffective. ARCP Rule 58 provides in part: Every judgment or decree shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment or decree is effective only when so set forth and entered as provided in Administrative Order No. 2. Administrative order No. 2 provides for the act of filing orders and judgments in the docket book. In Standridge v. Standridge, 298 Ark. 494 , 769 S.W.2d 12 (1989), we relied on Rule 58 to hold that a decree that had been announced from the bench did not become effective until the date of filing. The purpose of Rule 58 was to provide a definite point at which a judgment, be it a decree of divorce or other final judicial act, becomes effective. The rule tells clearly what that point is. Id. at 498 , 769 S.W.2d at 14 . Reporter's Note 4 to Rule 58 explains the rule's significance for appeal purposes: This rule provides that a judgment or decree shall not be effective unless and until it is entered pursuant to [Administrative Order No. 2]. Thus for appeal purposes, the date of entry or filing of the judgment or decree is the effective date, as opposed to the date of rendition."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Nance v. State“For a judgment to be final, it must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. (Citations omitted.) To be final, an order must be of such a nature as to not only decide the rights of the parties, but to put the court's directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable part of it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chambers v. Manning
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.