Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 Ind. App. 456 - Wiley v. Wiley

75 Ind. App. 456 - Wiley v. Wiley’s Empirical Analysis

1919

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
9
states following
September 1969
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 1969 · most notably Sweigart v. State (1938), Pry v. Pry (1947)

36 state decisions

140191919201930194019501960decided

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 Grigsby v. Reib · Cartwright v. McGown · Wenning v. Teeple · Boulden v. McIntire · Bruns v. Cope

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

  1. ““The specific relief asked is (1) that the ostensible marriage be adjudged void, and (2) that the status of the child be judicially established. But it is clear .that the ultimate purpose of the action is to determine the property rights of the parties. In other words, the ultimate purpose of the action is to determine who are the heirs at law and entitled to take the estate of the deceased. Under the facts averred, if the ostensible marriage is void, then Emma Bagby Wiley has no interest in said estate; and if Ethel Pauline Wiley is not the child of the deceased, then she has no 'interest in the estate. The purpose of the action is as unmistakable as if appellants had filed a complaint to quiet title to the real estate. . . . Appellants are not seeking to dissolve a voidable marriage. They rest their claim to the estate on the unequivocal theory that the pretended marriage is void. They are concerned in the marital ■status of their ancestor to the extent only that it interferes with their alleged -title to his .estate. If appellants had joined in a complaint to quiet title, in the usual short form under the statute, and containing no reference whatsoever to the pretended marriage, nevertheless, under the general rule, the marriage could have been thus attacked collaterally, and if shown to be void could have been so declared in that proceeding.” (pp. 464, 465.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Appellants are not seeking to dissolve a voidable marriage. They rest their claim to the estate on the unequivocal theory that the pretended marriage is void. ... In other words under the general rule, if the ostensible marriage is void, then the appellants would not be compelled to bring an action for the specific purpose of having it so adjudged; for a void marriage is good for no legal purpose, and its invalidity may be shown in any court, between any parties, either in the lifetime of the ostensible husband and wife or after the death of either or both of them.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““In view of all the legislation on this subject, we have no doubt that it is the purpose and policy of the Legislature to protect the citizens of the state from the evil consequences which would inevitably result from the marriage of the insane. The legislative effort to afford this protection would be nullified by holding such marriages voidable. . . . We are of the opinion that the word ‘void’ in said §8360, supra, is accurately used, and that under the facts averred in the complaint the ceremonial marriage of Hugh F. Wiley and Emma Bagby'is void.””
    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.