Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1976
2 federal appellate · 8 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 Rasing v. Healzer · Isenhart v. Powers · Burnham v. Burnham · Bailey v. Bailey · First National Bank of Newton v. Wm. B. Grimes Dry Goods Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““On the question of requirement of notice in change of custody proceedings we are unable to state the general rule with more clarity than was done in the recent case of Bailey v. Bailey, 164 Kan. 653 , 192 P. 2d 190 , where it was said: “ ‘Where in an action for divorce and custody of a minor child the trial court made its order fixing such custody, and at a later date a proceeding is instituted to change such custory, the court may make such an order only where the person having custody or right to custody of the child under the original order has had notice of the proceeding to change custody and an opportunity to defend.’ (Syl. 1.)””
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.