Boardman v. Carey’s Empirical Analysis
65 F.2d 600 · 1933
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1980
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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 Fullhart v. Fullhart · Courtney v. Courtney · Tendler v. Tendler · Kiddle v. Kiddle · Myers v. Myers
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court is thus authorized in divorce cases to require the husband to pay suit money to the wife, including counsel fees to enable her to conduct her case, and it is provided that such an order may be made “during the pendency” of the suit. It cannot be denied that the suit is pending when the final decree is entered disposing of it. The statutory phrase “to enable her to conduct her case” is designed to show the character of the services which are to be paid for by such an allowance, and does not limit the time when such allowance may be entered by the court. 1”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thunberg v. Thunberg
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.