Rediker v. Rediker’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably 67 Cal. 2d 343 - In re Griffin (1967), 49 Cal. 2d 210 - Spellens v. Spellens (1957)
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 105 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Pennoyer v. Neff · Hansberry v. Lee · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Williams v. State of North Carolina
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The validity of a divorce decree cannot be contested by a party who has procured the decree or a party who has remarried in reliance thereon, or by one who has aided another to procure the decree so that the latter will be free to remarry. ’ ’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Defendant contends, however, that the public policy of the state requires the annulment of bigamous marriages whenever their bigamous character is discovered. We find no basis for such a sweeping application of public policy. . . . Defendant does not indicate how any public purpose is served by the annulment of his marriage. . . . “‘It can no longer be said that public policy requires nonrecognition of all irregular foreign divorces. We have recognized that the interest of the state in many situations may lie with recognition of such divorces and preservation of remarriages rather than a dubious attempt to resurrect the original. From a pragmatic viewpoint, judicial invalidation of irregular foreign divorces and attendant remarriages, years after both events, is a less than effective sanction against an institution whose charm lies in its immediate respectability. We think it may now be stated that the general public policy in this jurisdiction, as judicially interpreted, no longer prevents application in annulment actions of the laches and estoppel doctrines in determining the effect to be given such divorce decrees.’ (Vinson J., in Goodloe v. Hawk, 113 F.2d 753, 757 ; Harlan v. Harlan, 70 Cal.App.2d 657, 663-664 [ 161 P.2d 490 ]; Krause v. Krause, 282 N.Y. 355, 360 [ 26 N.E.2d 290 ].) We conclude that the public policy of this state requires the preservation of the second marriage and the protection of the rights of the second spouse ‘ rather than a dubious attempt to resu”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"A state court cannot dispense with the requirement of notice and hearing by labelling the proceeding `in rem' if it seeks to make the findings of fact binding upon a stranger to the earlier action. A state court may no more make its findings of fact binding on a person over whom it has no jurisdiction than it may bind him by a judgment in personam when he has not been personally served."”
3 later decisions 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.