Horton v. Horton’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2003
13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Davis v. . Davis · Wood v. Wood · Luck v. Luck · Cornelius v. Cornelius
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Can a chancery court, when it denies a divorce, award custody of the children of the parties to the suit?” “This question has been answered negatively in New York and Georgia (Davis v. Davis, 75 N. Y. 221 ; Keppel v. Keppel [ 92 Ga. 506 ], 17 S. E. 976 ), and affirmatively in other states. Luck v. Luck, 92 Cal. 653 [ 28 Pac. 787 ]; Cornelius v. Cornelius, 31 Ala. 479 ; 2 Nelson, on Marriage and Divorce, § 979; 2 Bishop, on Marriage and Divorce, § 1185. “A learned writer on the subject of marriage and divorce points out that in those states holding that custody of children cannot be awarded, under the divorce statute, when the divorce is denied, the order could be made in habeas corpus proceedings; and that there is no reason why it should not be made in the divorce case when all the parties are before it, instead of remitting the parties to the other remedy. Nelson, on Marriage and Divorce, § 979. This reasoning commends itself to the court. While it looks beyond the authority of the chancery court in divorce suits where no divorce is granted to award the custody of the children, yet it cannot be questioned that the chancellor of that court is invested with full power to award custody of minor children for their best interests on habeas corpus proceedings. It seems idle to turn parties out of court, and invite them into the chancellor’s chambers for the same relief sought in court. There is no separation of the family here brought about by the court in making this order. The”
2 later decisions 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.