Sutton v. Leib’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 federal appellate · 11 district · 117 state decisions

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

1. “in every court within the United States.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC · Estate of Herman Borax, Deceased, Hermine H. Borax, Louis Borax and Benjamin Borax, Executors, and Hermine Borax v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

2. ““Legal Effect of Nevada and New York Events. Petitioner and Henzel were married in Nevada. Thereafter petitioner brought her putative husband before the New York court. Petitioner and Henzel subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the New York court and its decree annulling their Nevada marriage was entered with jurisdiction, so far as this record shows, of the parties and the subject matter. The burden is upon one attacking the validity of a judgment to demonstrate its invalidity. That judgment is res judicata between the parties and is unassailable collaterally. As both parties were before the New York court, its decree of annulment of their Nevada marriage ceremony is effective to determine that the marriage relationship of petitioner and Henzel did not exist at the time of filing the present complaint in Illinois for unpaid alimony. The effect in Illinois of the New York declaration of nullity on the obligation for alimony is a matter of Illinois law hereinafter treated. The New York annulment determines the marriage relationship that is the marital status of petitioner and Henzel, just as any divorce judgment determines such relationship. If the Nevada court had had jurisdiction by personal service in the state or appearance in the case of Henzel and the first Mrs. Henzel, its decree of divorce would have been unassailable in other states. So as to the New York decree annulling the marriage, New York had such jurisdiction of the parties and its decree is entitled to ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Porter v. Porter · Alton v. Alton

3. “relitigation in other states of adjudicated issues.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Aufill · Chapman v. Aetna Finance Co.