Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 184 Kan. 335 - Leach v. Leach

Leach v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
December 1973
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on White v. White · Shively v. Burr · Rodgers v. Rodgers · Kruse v. Kruse · Pinney v. Sulzen

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

  1. ““If after a divorce the party to whom custody was given removes with the child to another state, this would seem to give the second state jurisdiction over the custody, and put an end to the jurisdiction of the first state, for after the divorce each party may change domicile at will, and the child’s domicile changes with that of the parent in whose custody he has been placed.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . Thereupon, the court issued an order changing the custody of the son from the father to the mother. “In the present appeal the father seeks to reverse the last mentioned order. In this court on this appeal, for the first time, we are directed to a question of the jurisdiction of the courts of Kansas to change the custody of this boy evidently domiciled in New Mexico. “While this question has not been presented to the district court, it is in fact a question as to the jurisdiction of the subject of the action, and it can concededly be raised by the parties or this court on its own motion at any time. (Shively v. Burr, 157 Kan. 336 , 139 P. 2d 401 .)” (pp. 336, 337.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It would appear that at the time the order which has been appealed from was entered by the district court, that comt no longer had jurisdiction icr entertain the motion for the modification of the custody of the child concerned in this case. From the facts shown in the record he was at that time domiciled together with his father in New Mexico. The American people have not ceased to migrate, and a rule of law which reserves to the courts of the present domicile the question of custody of children would seem not only logical but very practical.” (p. 339.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.