Murphy v. Danforth’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on 437 So. 2d 122 - Mitchell v. Mitchell · 442 So. 2d 1094 - Nussbaumer v. Nussbaumer · Iacouzze v. Iacouzze · Kimmons v. Heldt · Iacouzze v. Iacouzze
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) continuing jurisdiction; (2) home-state jurisdiction; (3) significant-connection jurisdiction; and (4) jurisdiction when no other jurisdictional basis is available.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Moore v. Richardson“havoc wreaked by simultaneous and competitive jurisdictions.”
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.