Corliss v. Corliss’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Mask v. Mask (1980), Brister v. Brister (1979)
1 federal appellate · 58 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 Sistare v. Sistare · Matilda Von Ellert Sistare v. Horace Randall Sistare · Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald · Slade v. Slade · 147 W. Va. 660 - Rakes v. Ferguson
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notice and a fair hearing must be afforded both parties to meet the requirements of due process. . . . Moreover, a court cannot modify a judgment when neither party has sought such relief and the issue has not been implicitly or explicitly consented to by the parties. The Husband did not seek a modification of alimony, and neither party consented to a modification. Thus, the trial court improperly modified future alimony and is reversed. The modification of child support, however, is a different question. The Husband sought a change of custody which implicitly would involve the consideration of future child support if a change of custody were made. Although it would have been better practice to plead for modification of child support when seeking a change of custody, we nevertheless hold that failure to do so did not preclude consideration of the issue since the questions of change of custody and child support are so inextricably related. The trial court is affirmed on this issue. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Barela v. Barela“[ T]he Missouri trial court had no expressed power to modify arrearages. Mo. Rev.Stat. § 452.070 (1969) provided in part that “[t]he court, on application of either party, may make such alteration, from time to time, as to the allowance of alimony and maintenance, as may be proper * * * In Schaffer v. Security Fire Door Company, 326 S.W.2d 376 (Mo.Ct.App.1959), rev’d on other grounds, 332 S.W.2d 860 (1960), the words “make such alteration, from time to time” were construed to refer only to the future and to confer no power upon a court to cancel accrued child support under a former decree. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gomez v. Gomez
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.