Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 67 Utah 371 - Cooke v. Cooke

Cooke v. Cooke’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
4
states following
May 1974
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1974

13 state decisions

60192619301940195019601970decided

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 Cromwell v. County of Sac · New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank · Last Chance Min Co v. Tyler Min Co · Cromwell v. County of Sac · Lynde v. . Lynde

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

  1. “"The opinion of the judge or court so offered in evidence is not included in such transcript, nor certified to by the registrar; nor is it in any manner therein referred to; nor was it ever filed with the registrar or in his office; nor did it ever become a part of the records of the court;' nor was it ever in the custody of the registrar; nor was it ever attested by him; nor was the seal of the court ■annexed thereto. That also was true with respect to the transcript of the evidence which also was certified to only by the official stenographer. . . . "We are therefore of the opinion that the referee correctly excluded the offer of such evidehce, and that we may not properly notice or consider it, and that all there is properly before us for consideration ... is the judgment roll as hereinbefore referred to and as certified to and attested by the registrar of that court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In this country the general rule is that a spouse, though found or adjudged guilty of adultery, will not, for such reason, necessarily be deprived of the care and custody of his or her children (Haskell v. Haskell, 152 Mass. 16 [ 24 N.E. 859 ]; Ex parte Lincoln, 128 La. 278 [ 54 So. 818 ]; Brogna v. Brogna, 67 Wash. 687 [ 122 P. 1 ]; Richardson v. Richardson, 36 Wash. 272 [ 78 P. 920 ]), and especially where it is shown that the adulterous relation had ceased, or would not be repeated, or the morals of the child or children not affected thereby. And such is the effect of our statute, under which, different from the laws of Canada, the mother, in case of separation of husband and wife, instead of the father, is given the paramount right to the care, custody, and control of minor children.”
    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.