Keller v. O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably Santagate v. Tower (2005), Brandt v. Wand Partners (2001)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 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 Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. · J. A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth · Salamon v. Terra · Schuler v. Schuler
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If a complaint for modification is brought and a probate judge refuses to terminate the alimony obligation, the decision may be appealed. Absent a request for, and the allowance of, a stay of that judgment, the payor spouse must continue to pay alimony pending the appellate court’s decision. But if it is later determined that the probate judge erred, the payments will not operate as a waiver of any timely claim for a refund of the alimony, and restitution may be ordered dating from the judgment of the Probate Court. Our rule is now clear, and we do not anticipate that any hardship will be imposed by restitution in those circumstances. Where hardship is claimed, perhaps by reason of some intervening, unanticipated event during the appellate process, probate judges are in the best position to resolve those claims.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cox v. Cox““While we have not done so, some courts have ordered restitution where a judgment has been reversed after a party has been ordered by a court to make payment to another, and the judgment has been paid. See Restatement of Restitution § 74 (1937) (‘[a] person who has conferred a benefit upon another in compliance with a judgment. . . is entitled to restitution if the judgment is reversed or set aside, unless restitution would be inequitable . . .’).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cox v. Cox
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.