Ramey v. Ramey’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 1976
16 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 Stout v. Stout · Jones v. Jones · Cramer v. Browne · Jelinek v. Jelinek · McFall v. Jackson
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Under our recent and often repeated decisions, to which we have strictly adhered for many years, the established and inviolate rule has been and now is that a parent who is able to care for his children and desires to do so, and who has not been found to be an unfit person to have their custody, in an action or proceeding where that question is in issue, is entitled to the custody of his children as against grandparents or others who have no permanent or legal right to their custody, even though at the time the natural parent seeks their custody such grandparents or others are giving the children proper and suitable care and have acquired an attachment for them (See Jones v. Jones, 155 Kan. 213, 219, 124 P. 2d 457 ; May v. May, 162 Kan. 425 , 176 P. 2d 533 ; In re Jackson, 164 Kan. 391 , 190 P. 2d 426 ; Bailey v. Bailey, 164 Kan. 653 , 192 P. 2d 190 , citing numerous other and early decisions to the same effect).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Monroe v. Slaughter · Hamm v. Hamm““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
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.