Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 18 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (1984), Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp. (1989)
12 federal appellate · 18 district · 14 state decisions
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 Costello v. United States · Fowler v. a & a COMPANY · Tramontana v. S. A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Brell v. Brell · Richardson v. Richardson
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to evaluate the governmental policies underlying the applicable conflicting laws and to determine which jurisdiction's policy would be most advanced by having its law applied to the facts of the case under review.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The District can have scant interest in insisting upon the application of its policy toward an innocent purchaser spouse to protect a Maryland resident when Maryland real property will be affected and that state has expressed such a strong interest in land title stability and would not protect the innocent spouse. Since "the only relationship of the District of Columbia to this claim is that it provides a forum with jurisdiction over [appellant,] [t]hat is hardly a reason for the forum to prefer its own notions of policy to those embodied in the [Maryland] law...." Tramontana v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense, supra, 121 U.S.App.D.C. at 346-47, 350 F.2d at 476-77 . We hold that Maryland law should have been applied by the trial court to the resolution of the interest in Maryland real estate between the parties.”
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.