Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 620 SW2D 656 - Smith v. Young.

Smith v. Young.’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
2
states following
November 2012
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738

Relies on Williams v. State of North Carolina · Barber v. Barber · Caldwell v. Taylor · McElreath v. McElreath · 225 Cal. App. 2d 476 - Forslund v. Forslund

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

  1. “The judgment of a sister state may be attacked collaterally for fraud when the defense of fraudulent procurement would be available in the state in which the judgment was rendered.”
    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.