34 Conn. Super. Ct. 251 - Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2003
5 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 Williams v. State of North Carolina · Johnson v. Muelberger · Vogel v. Sylvester · Litvaitis v. Litvaitis · Tyler v. Aspinwall
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... if the jurisdictional question were determined at this point, it should be determined in favor of the plaintiff [i.e. of finding that jurisdiction does exist] so long as there is a colorable marriage res or status to which jurisdiction might attach. This would be especially pertinent if the court were later to decide that the marriage is not open to collateral attack by this defendant. In this regard it is clear that even if the defendant can collaterally attack the ... divorce some parties may be prohibited from attacking it. Thus, to some extent there is an existing status or res to which jurisdiction can attach. The first issue is not whether the marriage is void, but rather, whether it can be collaterally attacked.”
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.