Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 F. Supp. 657 - Hylek v. Hylek

53 F. Supp. 657 - Hylek v. Hylek’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2003

1 state decisions

301944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Wetmore v. Markoe · Audubon v. Shufeldt · 105 Ind. App. 92 - McCormick v. Collard · 108 Ind. App. 494 - Pavuk v. Scheetz · 83 Ind. App. 415 - Gilchrist v. Cotton

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

  1. “Is the nature of the obligation or claim changed by the fact that the parties children were emancipated when the Defendant asked for her Judgment? The answer is that Section 17 (now Section 523(a)(5)) imports past due liability as well as present and future liability, if any. True, the Plaintiff has no present duty to support his children. The duty he had in that regard has accrued and is past due. It is now in the form of a Judgment. The natural and moral and legal duty that he did have to support his children is still existing because he has not discharged it. He has not discharged the duty, although the children themselves were not deprived of the support which he was bound by law and morals to furnish. That support which he was under an obligation and order to supply was furnished by the Defendant and, in a sense, she has become subro-gated to the rights of her children to look to the father for support during their minority, which rights were defined and limited by a Court Order of 1931.”
    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.