Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 589 SW2D 235 - Keltner v. Keltner

Keltner v. Keltner’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Bryson v. Bryson (1981), Sumners v. Sumners (1985)

29 state decisions

26019791980199020002010decided

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 Linkletter v. Walker · Addington v. Texas · Wisconsin v. Illinois · Nelson v. Nelson · Angelet v. Fay

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

  1. “[p]rior to Stanhope, and at the time of [the alimony order at issue in Keltner], lawyers and judges knew that an exhus-band could not be imprisoned for failure to pay alimony in Missouri. There is no justification in law or equity to utilize an enforcement method (imprisonment) as to court orders made when imprisonment was not available as a coercive measure at the time the order was entered. The resulting inequities are certainly predictable and readily apparent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[f]rom the time that Coughlin ... was decided until our decision in Stanhope on March 8, 1976, the law of Missouri was that the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt prohibited the jailing of a person for contempt where the contempt was premised upon the failure to pay an alimony award.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “One of the most important factors considered by the courts “in deciding whether and to what extent a judicially changed rule of law should be given retroactive effect” is “the degree to which the prior rule may have been justifiably relied on”. Annot. 10 A.L.R.3d 1371 , 1378 (1966).”
    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.