Solomon v. Solomon’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2011 · most notably Ankenbrandt Lr Sr v. A Richards (1992), Weller III IV v. Department of Social Services for City of Baltimore (1990)
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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 M/s Bremen v. Zapata off-Shore Company · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Burrus · Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our understanding of these cases requires us to conclude that the district court properly refused to exercise jurisdiction over the instant case. The import of the Supreme Court’s language in these cases is that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction in domestic relations suits except where necessary to the effectuation of prior state court judgments involving the same matters or where jurisdiction lies by dint of the participation and review of territorial courts. The case at bar cannot be categorized into either narrow exception . Nor do we accept plaintiff’s contention that a divorce decree without more removes this case from the arena of domestic relations and permits the intervention of federal courts to adjudicate issues unaffected by that decree. At the core of both parties’ contentions is the parent-child relationship. The divorce decree in this case did not sever that relationship. There is no evidence that it either incorporated the terms of the separation agreement or merged with it. The state courts have not rendered any judgment on support payments which requires our invocation of jurisdiction to assure its efficacy. In Albanese v. Richter, 161 F.2d 688, 689 (3d Cir. 1947), we disclaimed jurisdiction over the suit of an illegitimate child against his putative father for support and education. That case made clear the fact that the classification of a suit as one in domestic relations does not depend upon the existence, and impliedly the continuation, of a ma”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Sltate courts have historically decided these [family law] matters and have developed both a well-known expertise in these cases and a strong interest in disposing of them.”
3 later decisions 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.