Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 F.2d 531 - Coppedge v. Clinton

Coppedge v. Clinton’s Empirical Analysis

72 F.2d 531 · 1934

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably 216 F. Supp. 709 - United States v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1962), Orville E. Stifel, II v. William F. Hopkins, Esq. (1973)

15 federal appellate · 6 district · 6 state decisions

90193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · McClellan v. Carland · Paul v. Virginia · Waterman v. Canal-Louisiana Bank & Trust Co. · Thompson v. Whitman

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

  1. “Whether an incompetent may change his domicile depends on the extent to which his reason is impaired. A comparatively slight degree of understanding is required. It is sufficient if he understands the nature and effect of his act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * But a person not under legal restraint, who has reached his majority and possesses the requisite mental capacity, may change his domicile at will. The right to change one’s domicile is a natural right, (citing cases)””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * The mere fact that a person is of unsound mind does not necessarily preclude him from changing his state domicile if he still has lucid intervals or sufficient mental capacity to elect a new domicile. * * * ””
    1 later decision 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.