Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 70 So. 2d 752 - Cryer v. Cryer

70 So. 2d 752 - Cryer v. Cryer’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
February 2017
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 2017

9 state decisions

301954196019701980199020002010decided

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 Walsh v. Walsh · State ex rel. Pelletier v. Sommerville · Miller v. Miller · Vinson v. Picolo · Adams v. Perilloux

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

  1. ““[W]here a judgment is sought to be annulled upon the basis that the evidence upon which it was secured was perjured, and this testimony was produced by the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered, there has to be some allegation that the one seeking the annulment did not know at the time the evidence was taken that the testimony was false, or else that if he knew it was false, he did not have the means at that time or the opportunity of contradicting this evidence.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Article 607 of the Code of Practice provides that a definitive judgment may be annulled where it appears that it was obtained through fraud or ill practices on the part of the party in whose favor it was rendered. While it has been held that the causes enumerated in this article are merely illustrative and not restrictive yet there must be some artifice or deception used to prevent an adversary from fully exhibiting his case. There were no artifice or deception used to prevent any answer being filed in the case or to prevent the opposing party from fully exhibiting his case."”
    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.