Sena v. Sena’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2012
11 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · May v. Anderson · 394 So. 2d 41 - Lightell v. Lightell
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice,'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Burke v. Burke · Coleman v. Coleman““Alabama statutes do not require in personam jurisdiction over both parties to grant a divorce. The wife alleged and proved her residence; see § 30-2-5, Ala.Code 1975. This was sufficient to allow jurisdiction over the wife and the marital res. Lightell v. Lightell, 394 So.2d 41, 42 (Ala.Civ.App.1981).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Burke v. Burke“purposely avails [himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman v. Coleman
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.