Chamberlin v. Chamberlin’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Hulsey v. Mid-America Preferred Insurance Co. (1989), Chandler v. Denton (1987)
1 federal appellate · 106 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 Hamid v. Sew Original · Frey v. Independence Fire & Casualty Co. · 84 Ill. 2d 365 - Thornton v. Illinois Founders Insurance Co. · Sisney v. Smalley · Timmons v. Royal Globe Insurance Co.
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court may not consider as part of an appellate record any instrument or material which has not been incorporated into the assembled record by a certificate of the clerk of the trial court, nor may a deficient record be supplemented by material physically attached to a party's appellate brief.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is the duty of the appealing party to procure a record that is sufficient to obtain the corrective relief sought.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... D. Upon granting a decree of dissolution of marriage, annulment of a marriage, or legal separation, the court may require either party to pay such reasonable expenses of the other as may be just and proper under the circumstances. E. The court may in its discretion make additional orders relative to the expenses of any such subsequent actions, including but not limited to writs of habeas corpus, brought by the parties or their attorneys, for the enforcement or modification of any interlocutory or final orders in the dissolution of marriage action made for the benefit of either party or their respective attorneys.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. King v. King · Barnett v. Barnett
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.