Matney v. Linn’s Empirical Analysis
1898
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2012 · most notably Lefkoff v. Sicro (1939), Hoard v. Jones (1925)
23 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 Hafer v. Hafer · State v. Hughes · Pilcher v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad · Peak v. Lenora State Bank · Dudley v. Shaw
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The fact that this step was ineffectual, and the further one that there was no formal marriage at that time, does not argue that they did not again enter the marriage relation. It appears that there was at that time a mutual present assent of the parties to immediate marriage. They were capable of assuming that relation, and in pursuance of that consent and agreement, they lived together as husband and wife, in good faith, until they were separated by death. These things were sufficient to constitute a valid consensual marriage.” (p. 618.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cain v. Cain
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.