Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 Ariz. 219 - Green v. Green

Green v. Green’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
4
states following
March 1985
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1985

16 state decisions

801954196019701980decided

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 Brandt v. Brandt · Confer v. District Court · Rice v. Moore

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

  1. ““. . . Under certain circumstances, however, the parties may be estopped to question the validity of a judgment for lack of jurisdiction. As applied to a divorce decree, the general rule is that if one’s conduct has led to the obtaining of the decree, or if his conduct for any other reason has been such as would make it inequitable to allow him to deny the validity of the decree, the courts will not listen to his pleas of invalidity. Restatement of the Law, 1948 Supplement, Conflict of Laws, section 112, comment (c). Under such circumstances, equity closes the door and refuses to disturb the situation thus created. This is not the equivalent of allowing parties to confer jurisdiction by consent; it is merely saying the court refuses to grant relief to a guilty party. We recognized these principles in the recent case of Brandt v. Brandt, 76 Ariz. 154 , 261 P.2d 978 . . . .” ( 77 Ariz. at 221-222 , 269 P.2d at 720 ).”
    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.