Phillips v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Subsequent to the decree in a divorce action, the district court has a continuing jurisdiction to change or modify an order therein made for support of a minor child when facts and circumstances are shown which make such change or modification proper. (G. S. 1935, 60-1510.) “The fact that the parties to a divorce action have entered into an agreement as to amounts to be paid monthly for support of a minor child, and that the court, finding the agreement to be reasonable, has ordered such payments to be made, does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction thereafter to modify the order as to subsequent payments, whenever facts and circumstances are shown which make such modification proper.” (Syl. f f 1 and 2.)”

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

2. ““At the outset it should be stated the appealing parties recognize the established rule (See Phillips v. Phillips, 163 Kan. 710, 712 , 186 P. 2d 102 , and cases there cited) that ordinarily the jurisdiction of district courts over the custody and support of minor children in a divorce action is a continuing jurisdiction and that the court may on proper motion and notice modify or change any order previously made providing for such custody and support whenever circumstances are shown which make such modification proper.” (Emphasis added.)”

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

3. ““Appellant takes note of this statute, but argues that when the parties entered into the stipulation including the provision for payment of $40 a month, they in effect waived’ the statute and became bound under the contract. The contention is not good. Even though the stipulation should be construed as an attempt to ‘waive’ the statute, the parties of course had no power by agreement among themselves or otherwise, to deprive the trial court of the jurisdiction which it has under the statute.” (pp. 711, 712.)”

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