Kenner v. Kenner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 59 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““"We are of the opinion that as between the parents, parties to the litigation, the decree of the foreign court awarding the custody of the children is res adjudicata, subject, as between those parties, to modification only by the court that granted the decree. [Citing cases.] However, we think this doctrine should be understood with the qualification that, in case of the removal of the child to another state, even within the custody of the parent to whom that custody had been awarded by the foreign decree of divorce, the courts of the state to which the removal has been effected will have the power, on a change of circumstances showing such course essential to the best interests of the child, to make a new disposition of the child.” [Citing cases.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 53 Tenn. App. 88 - Strube v. Strube · 50 Tenn. App. 394 - Dearing v. Dearing

2. ““ Should such foreign decree be accorded binding force when it purports to determine the right of custody of the children of the marriage, when such children were in the foreign state, in the custody of the plaintiff theren, where the suit was brought, and where the decree was pronounced or should the defendant in that suit, aside from grounds of fraud, be permitted to reopen the question, on such child or children being brought, into the residence state of such defendant, for a temporary purpose, as for a visit? “We are of the opinion that, under the circumstances stated in the question, the decree should be held binding on the parties thereto.” Citing cases.”

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

3. ““The determining fact seems to be that the child was in the foreign state in the custody of the parent who had there acquired a domicile, and was there suing for divorce, at the time the foreign court passed its decree. Wakefield v. Ives, 35 Iowa 238 ; Kline v. Kline, 57 Iowa 386 , 10 N. W. 825 , 42 Am. Rep. 4 7 . . . Seeley v. Seeley, supra [30 App. D. C. 191, 12 Ann. Cas. 1058]. Where the child is within the local jurisdiction the court has the power to award its custody to the one parent or the other; when it is not within that jurisdiction, no such power exists.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Tenn. App. 432 - Ritchison v. Ritchison