Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Kan. 220 - Cole v. Cole

Cole v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 1968
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Gates v. Gates · Hinshaw v. Hinshaw · Wible v. Wible · Boring v. Boring · Reinhart v. Reinhart

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

  1. ““When a journal entry of judgment fails accurately to reflect a judgment actually rendered a court has a right and duty to correct it by an order nunc pro tunc, the function of which is to enter, now for then, an order previously made.” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”
    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.