May v. Tenpenny’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1971
18 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 Jones v. Jones · Denton v. James · Pinney v. Sulzen · Swarens v. Swarens · Hollinger v. Eldredge
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is firmly established by repeated decisions of this court that a parent who is able to care for a child and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be an unfit person to have the custody of the child, in an action or proceeding where that question is in issue and upon competent evidence, is entitled to the custody of the child as against grandparents or others who have no permanent legal right to the custody of the child, even though at the time they are giving the child suitable care and have acquired an attachment for the child. See Swarens v. Swarens, 78 Kan. 682 , 97 Pac. 968 ; In re Hollinger, 90 Karr. 77, 132 Pac. 1181 ; Finney v. Sulzen, 91 Kan. 407 , 137 Pac. 987 ; In re Brown, 98 Kan. 663 , 159 Pac. 405 ; In re Zeigler, Petitioner, 103 Kan. 901 , 176 Pac. 974 ; Smith v. Scheuerman, 133 Kan. 348 , 299 Pac. 616 ; Andrews v. Landon, 134 Kan. 641 , 7 P. 2d 91 , and cases cited therein. “Counsel for appellee cite In re Bort, Petitioner, etc., 25 Kan. 308 , and In re Bullen, Petitioner, etc., 28 Kan. 791 , which deal with unusual situations, and cite, also, Chapsky v. Wood, 26 Kan. 650 , and Woodall v. Alexander, 107 Kan. 632 , 193 Pac. 185 . These cases were not overlooked in the consideration of the later cases, above decided, and while some of them present unusual situations, there is nothing in them contrary to the general principle of law above stated.” (l. c. 219.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bailey v. Bailey
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.