Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 418 P.2d 924 - DuBoise v. DuBoise

DuBoise v. DuBoise’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
March 1992
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1992

12 state decisions

501966197019801990decided

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 Turlington v. Turlington · Bishop v. Bishop · West v. West · Roberts v. Roberts · Manos v. Leche

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

  1. “One seeking relief on motion for new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence has the burden of establishing that his failure to produce such evidence at the trial was not due to lack of diligence on his part. Failure to make inquiry of persons likely to know the facts constitutes lack of diligence... . There must be a showing that the party with reasonable diligence could not have discovered the evidence in time to produce it at the trial of the case... . [T]he request is discretionary with the court and its denial of the request will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * In making a division of property in a divorce action the court should give consideration to the situation of both the husband and the wife. Roberts v. Roberts, Okl., 357 P.2d 980 ; Funk v. Funk, Okl., 319 P.2d 599 ; Scott v. Scott, 203 Okl. 60 , 218 P.2d 373 . The division is not required to be equal and the trial court is vested with a wide latitude of discretion in making the division. Funk v. Funk, supra; Jorski v. Jorski, Okl., 304 P.2d 1057 ; West v. West, Okl., 268 P.2d 250 ; Boles v. Boles, 194 Okl. 261 , 149 P.2d 502 ; Bishop v. Bishop, 194 Okl. 209 , 148 P.2d 472 , 155 A.L.R. 604 .””
    1 later decision 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.