Crownover v. Crownover’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1987
20 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 Williams v. State of North Carolina · Williams v. State of North Carolina · Sherrer v. Sherrer · John Haddock v. Harriet Haddock · Maynard v. Hill
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * [Tjhis Court had difficulty when faced with the problem of harmonizing its thinking in the Arledge case with the earlier Mimms case. The two come close to conflict; however, it is perhaps wise to deny that one of these cases should be overruled and one followed. The concept of exclusive jurisdiction of the United States over lands ceded by the states is a developing one as are all such concepts with their application to the increasing number of factual situations; the interstate commerce clause is an example.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““22-7-4. Residence requirement. — The plaintiff in action for the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony must have been an actual resident, in good faith, of the state for one (1) year next preceding the filing of his or her complaint; Provided, however, that in a suit for the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony wherein the wife is plaintiff, the residence of the husband in this state shall inure to her benefit and she may institute such action setting up any of the causes mentioned in section 2773 (25-701) [22-7-1] immediately after the accrual thereof, providing her husband shall have been qualified as to residence to institute a similar action; and Provided further, persons serving in any military 'branch of the United States government who have been continuously stationed in any military base or installation in the state of New Mexico for su,ch period of one (1) year, shall for the purposes hereof, be deemed residents in good faith of the state and county where such military base or installation is located.” [Emphasis added]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roebuck v. Roebuck““Residence requirement. — The plaintiff in action for the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony must have been an actual resident, in good faith, of the state for one (1) year next preceding the filing of his or her complaint; Provided, however, that in a suit for the dissolution of the bonds of matrimony wherein the wife is plaintiff, the residence of the husband in this state shall inure to her benefit and she may institute such action setting up any of the causes mentioned in section 2773(25-701) (22-7-1) immediately after the accrual thereof, providing her husband shall have been qualified as to residence to institute a similar action; and Provided further, persons serving in any military branch of the United States government who have been continuously stationed in any military base or installation in the state of New Mexico for such period of one (1) year, shall for the purposes hereof, be deemed residents in good faith of the state and county where such military base or installation is located(Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wallace v. Wallace
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.