Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 38 CAL 265 - Galland v. Galland

Galland v. Galland’s Empirical Analysis

1869

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

2 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably United States v. Robbins (1926), 52 Cal. 2d 735 - Hudson v. Hudson (1959)

2 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 17 states

1001869187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “The Legislature was not dealing with the general subject of alimony, as an independent subject-matter of legislation; but only, as one of the incidents of an application for divorce. It saw fit to define the power of the Court over the allowance of alimony on an application for divorce; but was not considering the subject of alimony in any other class of cases. If it had provided that a writ of ne exeat or distringas might issue against a defendant in an action for divorce, it would scarcely be claimed by any one that this was equivalent to a declaration that such writs should not issue in any other class of actions. For the same reason, a provision for alimony in a suit for divorce is not to be considered as a declaration that alimony shall not be allowed in other actions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““to abuse their wives, by a consciousness that any ill treatment which stopped short of a lawful ground for divorce was without redress in the courts. The courts must deal with human nature as they find it, and no system of jurisprudence can be so administered as to avoid possible abuses in exceptional cases.” Galland v. Galland, 38 Cal. 265 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “who, without cause or provocation, is driven from her husband's house ... and is wholly without the means of support,”
    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.