Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 535 SW2D 215 - Carter v. Carter

Carter v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
December 1994
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1994

11 state decisions

50197619801990decided

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 Burnaman v. Heaton · Farr v. McKinzie · WL Moody & Company, Bankers v. Yarbrough

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

  1. “The law seems to be clear that a consent judgment cannot be rendered by a trial court when consent of one of the parties is lacking, even though consent may have theretofore been given by such dissenting party. The rule is that consent must exist at the very moment the trial court undertakes to make the agreement the judgment of the court.”
    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.