Preece v. Preece’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2006
8 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 Sahler v. Sahler · 145 Ohio St. 5 - Caprita v. Caprita · STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Higgs · 48 Wis. 2d 535 - O'Connor v. O'Connor · Becker v. King
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion nunc pro tunc is used to make the record speak the truth; it may not be used to correct the court’s failure to speak. In other words, the function of a nunc pro tunc order is not to make an order now for then, but to enter now for then an order previously made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A motion nunc pro tunc is used to make the record speak the truth; it may not be used to correct the court's failure to speak.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The determinative factor which prevents the use of nunc pro tunc in the instant case is the lack of signature on a decree and the attendant ability of the court to alter the terms of the decree until it was signed and entered. Additionally, the dispute over the substantive issue of attorney fees (in spite of respondent’s counsel’s indication that he would leave its resolution to the trial court) points to a lack of finality. Because the judge’s oral announcement was not reduced to a signed written decree prior to the death of Mr. Preece, a previously made order did not exist and therefore did not afford the court the right to employ the nunc pro tunc device. However, even if the oral announcement were considered a previous order, nunc pro tunc was misapplied here. A nunc pro tunc order should be the reflection of a previously made ruling. The court had orally announced that the decree was “to become final upon signing.” By making it effective as of the trial date rather than upon signing, the court al tered its previous ruling. It did not merely reflect its previous ruling.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Horne v. Horne
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.