Henry v. Henry’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2000
11 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 Urbach v. Urbach · Anderson v. Anderson · Davis v. Davis · Kusick v. Kusick · Stewart v. Stewart
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * It is the manifest duty of this court upon an appeal of this character to review the entire record for the purpose of disposing of the case according to the provisions of the statute under which the appeal is taken, and in divorce cases this duty rests upon the court, regardless of the desires of counsel or parties, that, if possible, the case be disposed of without affecting a judgment of divorce. * * * Where a retrial is had in this court * * * and where it is not limited to the review of specific questions of fact, the entire record is here for review for the purpose of enabling the court to enter such judgment as is appropriate upon the whole record. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rohde v. Rohde““This court has held that there can be no such thing as a trial de novo in tíiie Supreme Court upon an appeal frbm a portion of the judgment, and there are excellent reasons why an appellant cannot do indirectly, upon an appeal from a judgment, what he is not permitted to do directly by appealing from a portion of the judgment.” See also Henry v. Henry, 77 N.D. 845 , 46 N.W.2d 701 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hovland v. Hovland“* * * In the matter of awarding custody of children a large discretion is vested in the trial court and its decision thereon will be interfered with only where there is an abuse of that discretion. Nelson, Divorce and Annulment 2nd Ed. 415; 2 Schouler, Marriage and Divorce, 6th Ed. 2033; Sjol v. Sjol [ 76 N.D. 336 ] 35 N.W.2d 797, 798 . * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gress v. Gress
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.