Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 F.2d 829 - Harris v. Harris

Harris v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

89 F.2d 829 · 1937

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
6
states following
May 1988
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently May 1988

4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

80193719401950196019701980decided

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 Storke v. Storke · Yates v. Yates · Spratt v. Spratt · 26 App. D.C. 235 - Lane v. Lane · Morgan v. Morgan

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

  1. “It is held by the authorities without exception, so far as we can discover, `where a divorce is granted against the wife to whom an award of alimony is made, that, by accepting the alimony, she is precluded from taking and prosecuting an appeal from the decree of divorce.' 2 Am. Jur. § 219, p. 981.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This ruling does not leave the wife helpless if because of destitute circumstances she is entitled to be maintained during the period she seeks to exercise her right of appeal. It is within her power to refuse to accept the alimony awarded her and to apply to the trial court for an allowance of alimony and suit money to enable her to prosecute her appeal, and in the event of a denial of her application by the lower court she may seek such relief in this court. Morgan v. Morgan, 25 App. D.C. 389 ; Bernsdorff v. Bernsdorff, 26 App. D.C. 228 ; Lane v. Lane, 26 App. D.C. 235 , 6 Ann. Cas. 683. However, instead of doing this appellant elected to accept the benefits of the decree in question and at the same time to challenge its correctness by an appeal. This she cannot do.”
    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.