Blair v. Blair’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

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

1. ““The district court shall have power to vacate or modify its own judgments or orders, at or after the term at which such judgment or order was made: . . . Fourth. For fraud, practiced by the successful party, in obtaining the judgment or order.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stafford v. Stafford · Hodge v. Hodge

2. ““It is well settled by previous decisions of this court that the decree of divorce was not void. All the formalities which the law required to be observed were observed. A verified petition showing that the plaintiff was a resident in good faith of Johnson county, had been such for more than a year, and stating a statutory ground for divorce, was filed. A proper showing for service by publication was made and a proper notice was published. A proper affidavit giving reasons for not mailing the petition and publication notice was filed. The prescribed preliminary steps having been taken, the court acquired jurisdiction. All that followed was the exercise of jurisdiction, and the journal entry of judgment discloses that the subsequent proceedings were regular in every particular. It made no difference if the affidavit giving the reason for not mailing a copy of the petition and of the notice were false. . . . Blair was required to allege and prove residence such as the law required. It made no difference if the allegation were false. . . . Jurisdiction over the subject of divorce, a petition good on its face, and due service by publication gave the court the right to take the evidence and decide the question of residence. If the decision were wrong, it was not void for want of jurisdiction. ... It made no difference if all the other allegations of the petition were false and were sustained by false testimony. The judgment would still not be void. . . . “Although not void for wan”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fincher v. Fincher

3. ““Regarding the petition in the light of a petition to vacate a judgment for fraud under the provision of the code of civil procedure, the court was without jurisdiction. Section 596 [now G. S. 1949, 60-3007] of the civil code provides that the district court shall have power to vacate its own judgments or orders at or after the term at which they were entered in nine specific instances. The fourth is for fraud practiced by the successful party in obtaining the judgment or order. The method of procedure is in some instances by simple motion and notice. In others, as in the case of fraud, greater formality is required. The applicant is required to file a petition which must conform to certain requirements, and a summons must be issued and served as at the commencement of an action. In some respects the latter proceeding takes the form of a new action and may present equitable aspects. (The State v. Soffietti, 90 Kan. 742 , 136 Pac. 260 .) The proceeding, however, is not an action but is a special proceeding, according to the definitions of the code (§ § 4, 5), and is in no sense a substitute for an equity suit cognizable under the general equity powers of the court. The petitioner is held to a substantial compliance with all the limitations imposed upon the remedy. (Daniel Hill v. Elias Williams, 6 Kan. 17 ; Sanford v. Weeks, 50 Kan. 339 , 31 Pac. 1088 ; Publishing House v. Heyl, 61 Kan. 634 , 60 Pac. 317 .) . . . “Section 579 [now G. S. 1949, 60-3008] is not a statute of limit”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hodge v. Hodge