Cummings v. Cummings’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 1974
4 federal appellate · 11 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 Hendricks v. Hendricks · Fuller v. Fuller · Werner v. Werner · Roe v. Roe · Bowers v. Bowers
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law of this state recognizes that a wife has an interest in property accumulated by husband and wife while the marriage relation existed. The interest is distinct from alimony. (Hardesty v. Hardesty, 115 Kan. 192 , 222 Pac. 102 ; Hendricks v. Hendricks, 136 Kan. 69 , 12 P. 2d 804 .) Alimony has for its basis right to maintenance only. Division of property has for its basis right to a just and equitable share of property. (Bowers v. Bowers, 70 Kan. 164, 167 , 78 Pac. 430 .)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.