54 So. 3d 356 - Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 93 Wis. 2d 671 - Wilharms v. Wilharms · 44 Va. App. 51 - Estate of Hackler v. Hackler · 684 So. 2d 132 - Ex Parte Toyota Motor Corp. · Cox v. Dodd · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Howell
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n interlocutory order that affects the property rights of the parties to a divorce action may not be enforced after the death of one of the parties due to the abatement of that action. Here, upon the husband's death and the subsequent abatement of the divorce action in the family court, the TRO became a nullity, which could no longer be enforced. Because the subject matter of this action is an alleged violation of a nullity (the TRO), the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this action; therefore, the judgment of the trial court is void.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. JOHNSON v. SNOW
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.