Schuster v. Schuster’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 1978
24 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 United States v. Throckmorton · Vance v. Burbank · Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. Otterson · Dockery v. Central Arizona Light & Power Co. · Bell v. Bell
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But, even assuming for the sake of the argument, that this is a direct attack upon the judgment, and not a collateral one, we think that plaintiff’s complaint did not state a cause of ac tion. Even in direct proceedings, judgments may not be attacked for any and all kinds of fraud. The fraud complained of must have been practiced in .the very act of obtaining the judgment, and all cases of fraud which might have been used to win or defeat the action on its merits are excluded. The fraud must be extrinsic and collateral to the matter tried, and not something which was actually or potentially in issue in the case, unless the interposition of the defense was prevented by fraud or conduct of the opposite party.”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gonzales v. Whitney““The superior court of Maricopa county unquestionably had the power, by its general jurisdiction, to try and determine divorce cases, and to render in áuch: cases judgments settling both the right of divorce and the property rights of the parties. Whether such judgment was correct on the’facts, or whether it was based on a valid complaint, is not a question of a lack of jurisdiction, but of the exercise of jurisdiction!””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carnahan v. Carnahan“" ' * * * the action is not brought for the sole purpose of impeaching or overturning the former judgment, but has also for its object an independent relief or result, * * *. Tube City Min., etc., Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305 , 146 P. 203 , L.R.A.1916E, 303; 23 Cyc. 1062.’””
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.