Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 Wyo. 222 - Hume v. Ricketts

Hume v. Ricketts’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2017

12 state decisions

401952196019701980199020002010decided

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 Larsen Sheep Co. v. Sjogren · Reynolds v. Lloyd Cotton Mills · Bank of Edwardsville v. Raffaelle · Haupt v. Simington · Drew v. Thurlwell

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

  1. “Jurisdiction of the court over the parties is an essential to the validity of any judgment and a personal judgment rendered without such jurisdiction'is void.' However, the judgment is presumed to be "valid and the presumption in favor of jurisdiction extends to jurisdiction of the parties. By the general rule, a collateral attack may not be made upon a judgment where the absence of jurisdiction over the parties does not appear upon the record.... [A] void judgment, such as one wherein the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties, can be attacked collaterally only where the invalidity appears on the face of the record. Where the invalidity does not appear on the face of the record, the proper action is a direct attack.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * Collateral attack might be defined as an attack on a judgment in any manner other than by action or proceeding whose very purpose is to impeach or overturn the judgment, or, stated affirmatively, a collateral attack upon a judgment is an attack made by or in an action or proceeding that has an inde pendent purpose other than impeaching or overturning the judgment * * ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.