Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Kan. 567 - Hedding v. Inman

Hedding v. Inman’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
March 1973
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1973

10 state decisions

60195219601970decided

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 Prier v. Lancaster

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

  1. ““It is clear the trial court properly deemed the best interests of Susan to be the paramount issue. Such is clearly the law. (See Frier v. Lancaster, 169 Kan. 368 , 219 P. 2d 358 .) The trouble about that rule is it is easy to state but difficult to apply. Every case has some new feature. One cannot read the reports of this court without being convinced that justices from the time of the revered Justice Brewer down to now have felt their inadequacy. Such cases have been submitted to us many times. We can only do our best to look beyond the personalities of the older persons concerned to the welfare of the child.” (p.572.)”
    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.