Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 Nev. 179 - Fleming v. Fleming

Fleming v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
7
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Heard v. Heard (1948), State Ex Rel. Groves v. First Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Ormsby (1942)

26 state decisions

70193719401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lamborn v. Lamborn · Dixon v. Dixon · Vilas v. Vilas · Spratt v. Spratt · 89 Cal. App. 177 - Smith v. Superior Court

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

  1. ““As to the judgment for counsel fees, appellant contends that the court had no power to render such judgment; that its only power with respect to counsel fees lies in the area of suit money under NRS 125.040 to require the husband ‘to pay such sums as may be necessary to enable the wife to carry on or defend such suit.’ “This point, too, is well taken. While expenses of the litigation may well be taken into consideration by a court in its disposition of community property, judgment for counsel fees in an action for divorce is not otherwise authorized save as founded upon a motion for suit money and the showing necessary upon such a motion.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is our opinion that on petition for modification of a divorce decree as to custody of children the trial court, under certain conditions and circumstances, can lawfully require the former husband to pay reasonable sums for suit money and attorneys’ fees to the former wife. [Citing authorities . Contra to the foregoing rule are cases in Washington, Iowa, and a few other jurisdictions.””
    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.