Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 Haw. 258 - Crow v. Crow

Crow v. Crow’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
January 2005
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2005 · most notably Chun v. Board of Trustees (2005), Fujimoto v. Au (2001)

25 state decisions

8019661970198019902000decided

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 Richards v. Richards · Filipino Federation of America, Inc. v. Cubico · Saint v. Saint · Lyon v. Bush · Kraus v. Kraus

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

  1. ““Upon granting a divorce the judge may make such further decree or order against the defendant, compelling him to provide for the maintenance of the children of the marriage, to provide such suitable allowance for the wife, for her support, and to finally divide and distribute the estate, real, personal, or mixed, whether community, joint, or separate, in such proportion as shall appear just and equitable, having regard to the respective merits of the parties, to the ability of the husband, to the condition in which they will be left by such divorce, to the burdens imposed upon it for the benefit of the children of such marriage, and all other circumstances of the case; * * (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[findings] of fact on which the contempt order is based may not be stated in a general manner; the facts themselves must be stated in such a way that the particular matter for which the [defendant] is held in contempt is not left in doubt, and this requires the specific recital of instances in which contempt occurred.”
    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.