Chamblin v. Chamblin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A court’s jurisdiction having been once attacked, the former adjudication precludes the raising of the question again. (Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. National Storage Co., 260 Ill. 485 , 103 N.E. 2d 227 .) The doctrine of res adjudicata and estoppel applies not only to all matters that were litigated, but to all others that might have been presented in that proceeding. Cases will not be entertained and tried piece-meal." Chamblin v. Chamblin, 362 Ill. 588, 592 , 1 N.E.2d 73, 74-75 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Corliss v. Davidson & Case Lumber Co. · 28 Ill. App. 3d 580 - Sidwell v. Sidwell

2. ““Appellant claims that the decree for divorce in Nevada was obtained through fraud and that the courts of Nevada had no jurisdiction because Chamblin was not a bona fide resident of that State when he brought suit. She relies upon the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and of this court, which hold that the constitutional provision requiring full faith and credit to be given to the judicial proceedings of another State does not prevent an inquiry into the jurisdiction of the court which rendered the judgment or decree, either as to the person or the subject matter, notwithstanding a recital therein of the jurisdictional facts. (Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 ; Simmons v. Saul, 138 U. S. 439 ; National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 id. 257.) In consonance with those holdings we have repeatedly announced the same doctrine. (Dunham v. Dunham, 162 Ill. 589 ; Field v. Field, 215 id. 496; Forsyth v. Barnes, 228 id. 326; Pembleton v. Illinois Commercial Men’s Ass’n, 289 id. 99.) ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 291 Ill. App. 152 - Jardine v. Jardine

3. ““Further, the default of certain individuals ‘does not relieve the complainant from the necessity of establishing his case against those who appear and plead. One defendant cannot admit a cause of action against his co-defendants who defend against it. [Citation.] *** A judgment or decree against one defendant for want of a plea or answer does not prevent any other defendant from contesting, so far as respects himself, the very fact which is admitted by the other party.’ Chamblin v. Chamblin (1936), 362 Ill. 588, 593 .” 97 Ill. 2d 544, 554 , 455 N.E.2d 73, 77 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 136 Ill. App. 3d 745 - Heman v. Jefferson