Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 1976
15 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 Fleming v. Fleming · Albrecht v. Albrecht · Bristol v. Bristol · Farwell v. Farwell · Dockins v. Dockins
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Bach ease must be determined upon its own peculiar facts, and it is well-recognized by the authorities that an inclusive and exclusive definition of legal cruelty cannot be given. The courts have not attempted so to do, but generally are content with a determination as to whether the facts in the case considered constitute extreme cruelty.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hennity v. Hennity
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.