Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 866 F.2d 368 - Ingram v. Hayes

Ingram v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis

866 F.2d 368 · 1988

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Ankenbrandt Lr Sr v. A Richards (1992), Carver v. Carver (1992)

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

2201988199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Huff v. Metropolitan Life Insurance · McDougald v. Jenson · Crouch v. Crouch · William H. Hernstadt v. Sharon S. Hernstadt

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

  1. “Federal courts should not abstain when the following policies favoring federal abstention are absent: ‘the strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the competency of state courts in settling family disputes, the possibility of incompatible federal and state decrees in cases of continuing judicial supervision by the state, and the problem of congested dockets in federal courts.’ [citation omitted]. Consequently, federal courts should dismiss the action only if hearing the claim would man date inquiry into the marital or parent-child relationship, [citation omitted].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “cases involving divorce and alimony, child custody, visitations rights, establishment of paternity, child support, and enforcement of separation or divorce decrees still subject to state court modification.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The federal judiciary has traditionally abstained from deciding cases concerning domestic relations.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.