Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sutton Vs. Leib

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 03, 1952

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

54 entries 6 linked 48 unlinked
Show
  1. Angel Vs. Bullington US Supreme Court · Feb 17, 1947
  2. Cook Vs. Cook US Supreme Court · Dec 03, 1951
  3. Sherrer Vs. Sherrer US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  4. Milliken Vs. Meyer US Supreme Court · Dec 23, 1940
  5. Rice Vs. Rice US Supreme Court · Apr 18, 1949
  6. EstIn Vs. Estin US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1948
  7. U.S. 402 (1952) U.S. Supreme Court Sutton v. Leib
    Search
  8. U.S. 402 (1952) Sutton v. Leib
    Search
  9. Rather, the situation more nearly approaches Barber v. Barber
    Search
  10. while leaving to the law of the forum state the application of the predetermined facts to the new problem. Riley v. New
    Search
  11. at all, is liable for the period during which Henzel may have owed support under a rule such as that of Sleicher v. Sleicher
    Search
  12. binding in the state where it is rendered. Thus, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER remarks in his concurring opinion, Williams v. North
    Search
  13. And Mr. Justice Murphy, concurring in Williams v. North
    Search
  14. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  15. Worcester County Co. v. Riley
    Search
  16. Credit Clause does not require uniformity of decision as to domicile between the courts of different states. Cf. Texas v. Florida
    Search
  17. U. S. 398 , 306 U. S. 410 . Riley v. New
    Search
  18. Treinies v. Sunshine
    Search
  19. supra, citing Williams v. North
    Search
  20. U. S. 674 . Cf. Sherrer v. Sherrer
    Search
  21. Poupart v. District
    Search
  22. See note 1 and Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis
    Search
  23. Williams v. North
    Search
  24. U. S. 541 . See MacKay v. MacKay
    Search
  25. Propper v. Clark
    Search
  26. prior to the Nevada marriage do not amount to a compromise of the disputed claim. 188 F.2d at 767-768. Cf. Moore v. Shook
    Search
  27. Darst v. Lang
    Search
  28. Meredith v. City
    Search
  29. held entitled to the funds, as a valid marriage was intended, and this one was void ab initio. Likewise Chapman v. Bradley
    Search
  30. Bishop v. Smith
    Search
  31. For effect on different incidents, see Henneger v. Lomas
    Search
  32. Burney v. State
    Search
  33. Miller v. Wall
    Search
  34. Deeds v. Strode
    Search
  35. Figoni v. Figoni
    Search
  36. This avoids double support to the wife. Sleicher v. Sleicher
    Search
  37. N.Y. 366, 167 N.E. 501. See Frank v. Carter
    Search
  38. Lehmann v. Lehmann
    Search
  39. by the practical construction given to the alimony decree by the parties. 225 Ill.App. at 516, 527. See Wilson v. Cook
    Search
  40. This case illustrates what little excuse is left for diversity jurisdiction, certainly since Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
    Search
  41. U.S. Supreme Court Sutton v. Leib
    Search
  42. Riley v. New
    Search
  43. of Sleicher v. Sleicher
    Search
  44. Cf. Texas v. Florida
    Search
  45. Cf. Sherrer v. Sherrer
    Search
  46. and Union & Planters' Bank v. Memphis
    Search
  47. See MacKay v. MacKay
    Search
  48. Cf. Moore v. Shook
    Search
  49. Likewise Chapman v. Bradley
    Search
  50. Henneger v. Lomas
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial