Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 79 R.I. 399 - Gartner v. Gartner

Gartner v. Gartner’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
states following
February 2005
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2005 · most notably Spingola v. Spingola (1978), King v. King (1975)

35 state decisions

180195219601970198019902000decided

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 Parenti v. Parenti · Harvey v. Harvey · Moore v. Moore · 165 Pa. Super. 6 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Balla v. Wreski · Leighton v. Leighton

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

  1. ““The said court may regulate the custody and provide for the education, maintenance, and support of children of all persons by it divorced or petitioning for a divorce, and of all persons to whom a separate maintenance may be granted or who may petition for the same; may in its discretion make such allowance to the wife, out of the estate of the husband, for the purpose of enabling her to prosecute or defend against any such petition for divorce or separate maintenance, in case she has no property of her own available for such purpose, as it may think reasonable and proper * * )}”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The prosecution of her motion presenting questions pertaining to her personal rights or her defense against respondent’s motions in the case at bar clearly does not come within the purview of that section. However, the trial justice did not award her counsel fees but rather expressly awarded them solely for the benefit of the child in prosecuting the motion for an increased allowance. We think an award of counsel fees for such a purpose falls in a special category and is properly within the discretion of the trial justice.””
    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.