McCarthy v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 1998
9 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 La Presto v. La Presto · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Newman · Forbis Ex Rel. Davis v. Forbis · Schenberg v. Schenberg · 71 Mo. App. 438 - Penningroth v. Penningroth
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We cannot agree with the appellant that his income should be given primary consideration by the trial court when making an award for alimony pendente lite. We believe that the correct rule is that the husband’s financial position, income and property should be considered as a whole when determining his ability to pay such award. In no event should the consideration given to the husband’s income be allowed to outweigh the needs of his wife and family, but each should be equally weighed in arriving at the proper award.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Folk v. Folk
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.