Feldman v. Feldman’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably Menor v. Menor (1964), Paul v. Paul (1980)
2 district · 29 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 Hayn v. Hayn · Petty v. Petty · Anderson v. Anderson · Calkins v. Calkins · Johnson v. Johnson
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The trouble with appellant’s position is that the decisions on which he relies are not in point and that he entirely overlooks another line of cases, applicable to the facts and circumstances here involved, holding there is a distinct difference between what the court has authority to do under the statute with respect to alimony in a divorce case and what the parties may agree upon. We are not disposed to labor those decisions. It will suffice to say they hold, see Hyde v. Hyde, 143 Kan. 660 , 56 P.2d 437 , Petty v. Petty, 147 Kan. 342 , 76 P.2d 850 , and cases therein cited, a husband, and wife may enter into a marriage settlement whereby they agree upon a division of property as between themselves and payments to be made by the husband to the wife for the care and support of their children, including maintenance of the wife as well while such children are in her care and custody, and that such an agreement, where it has been freely and fairly made, may be made a part of the judgment in a divorce action and that the judgment thereby entered as to payments to be so made to the wife is valid even though the sum total of' such payments is neither itemized as to purpose nor definitely fixed as to amount. * * * ” (Emphasis in original.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . [A] husband and wife may enter into a marriage settlement whereby they agree upon a division of property as between themselves and payments to be made by the husband to the wife for the care and support of their children, including maintenance of the wife as well while such children are in her care and custody, and that such an agreement, where it has been freely and fairly made, may be made a part of the judgment in a divorce action and that the judgment thereby entered as to payments to be so made to the wife is valid even though the sum total of such payments is neither itemized as to purpose nor definitely fixed as to amount. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Clark v. Chipman“the general rule is that in granting a divorce a court has no authority under the statute to decree that a part of the property of the husband shall be the sole property of his children.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paul v. Paul
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.