Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 341 FSUPP 217 - Forbush v. Wallace

Forbush v. Wallace’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
12
states following
April 1991
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 1991 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 355 - Occidental Land, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976), Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger (1982)

16 federal appellate · 15 state decisions — followed in 12 states

320197119801990decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Dandridge v. Williams · Jenkins v. McKeithen · Williams v. Rhodes

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

  1. “"We may commence our analysis of the merits of the controversy by noting that Alabama has adopted the common law rule that upon marriage the wife by operation of law takes the husband's surname. Roberts v. Grayson, 233 Ala. 658, 660 , 173 So. 38 (1937); Bentley v. State, 37 Ala. App. 463, 465 , 70 So.2d 430 (1954)."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a tradition extending back into the heritage of most western civilizations,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In balancing the interest of the plaintiff and the members of plaintiff’s class against the interest of the state, this Court concludes that the administrative inconvenience and cost of a change to the State of Alabama far outweigh the harm caused the plaintiff and the members of plaintiff’s class. In balancing these interests, this Court notes that the State of Alabama has afforded a simple, inexpensive means by which any person, and this includes married women, can on application to a probate court change his or her name, (citation omitted). Thus, on balance, plaintiff’s injury, if any, through the operation of the law is de minimus. (footnote omitted)” Id. at 222 .”
    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.