Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 Ill. 361 - Adler v. Adler

Adler v. Adler’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
8
states following
September 2012
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably 26 Cal. 2d 605 - Hough v. Hough (1945), Francis v. Francis (1967)

10 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

21019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Herrick v. Herrick · Maginnis v. Maginnis · Stillman v. Stillman · Wilson v. Caswell · Wallace v. Wallace

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

  1. “It was lawful for [husband] and [wife] to specify in the supplemental trust indenture and agreement * * * that the quarterly payments to [wife] should continue for her life regardless of her subsequent marriage. [Wife] could rely on the contract for the payment, and in the event of a breach in any of its’ parts, could bring appropriate action for the enforcement of its provisions, or she had the right with the approval of [husband], to have a consent decree entered adopting the provisions of the agreement. The latter action having been taken, the provisions for quarterly payments to [wife] as provided in the [agreement] became merged in the decree. [Adler v. Adler, 26 N.E.2d at 508-509 .]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The question presented is whether the provision in the supplemental instruments of December 1, 1922, and the decree of December 2 for the quarterly payment of $1150, was an allowance of alimony and subject to modification under section 18 of the Divorce act, or Was it a final settlement in gross, of all the interest of the parties arising out of the marital relation, and, therefore, beyond the power of the court to modify or change.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Her rights became fixed as to accrued payments, but as to all payments maturing in the future she had no vested right. The trial court did not undertake to give the statute a retroactive effect.... The amendment of 1933 to section 18 of the Divorce Act does not effect any vested rights of respondent.””
    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.