Tydings v. Tydings’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2016
12 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 Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Armour & Co. v. Wantock · Webster v. Fall · Shaw v. Railroad Co. · Weiman v. Weiman
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“During the pendency of an action for legal separation, divorce, the termination of a domestic partnership pursuant to § 32-702(d), where one of the domestic partners has filed a petition for relief under this section, or an action by a spouse to declare the marriage null and void, where the nullity is denied by the other spouse; the court may: (1) require the spouse or domestic partner ... to pay suit money, including counsel fees, to enable such other spouse to conduct the case. The court may enforce any such order by attachment, garnishment, or 'imprisonment for disobedience. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“would depend on the willingness of those specialists to await the result of the property division to be paid.” Id. at 891 . Neither in Tydings nor in this case, however, were contingent fee arrangements employed by the spouse seeking suit money, and thus Tydings ’ concern on this score does not apply to the present case. 4 . Conceivably, the allegations in Mr. McClintic’s motion might have warranted an award of fees under the bad faith exception to the American Rule. We express no opinion on that question, however, because whether Mrs. McClintic’s conduct could be characterized as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[D.C.Code] § 16-911 [ (a)(1) ] is designed to ensure that a party in a divorce action not be hindered unfairly in maintaining the action by unequal burdens between spouses.” (quoting Tydings v. Tydings, 567 A.2d 886, 890 (D.C.1989))). .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cave v. Scheulov
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.