Fowler v. Fowler’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2010
8 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 Committee for Educational Equality v. State · City of St. Louis v. Hughes · Boley v. Knowles · State Ex Rel. York v. Daugherty · Marriage of Slay v. Slay
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“2. The parties to a cause of action heard by a commissioner are entitled to file with the court a motion for a hearing by a judge of the family court either within fifteen days after receiving notice of the findings of the commissioner at the hearing, or within fifteen days after the mailing, or within fifteen days after other service directed by the court.... The judge shall promptly rule on such motion and, in his discretion, may either sustain or deny the motion, and if the motion is sustained, the judge shall set a date for a hearing. If the motion for rehearing is not ruled on within forty-five days after the motion is filed, it is denied for all purposes. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the portion of section 487.030.2 that allows a judge to deny a motion for rehearing by not ruling on the motion within forty-five days.” Id. at 511-12 . However, Rule 129, which makes permissible the judge’s denial of a motion for rehearing by the passage of time, was not effective until September 1, 1998 and therefore was inapplicable to Fowler . Because Rule 129 was in effect during the relevant period of time involved in the case before us, we apply it here. . Relator’s”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“not person[s] selected for office in accordance with and authorized to exercise judicial power by article V of the state constitution”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Finnegan
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.