Gardner v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 state decisions

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

1. ““In the situation here presented the paramount consideration of the court is the welfare and best interests of the child. The court has recognized in a long line of cases that the trial court is in the best position to judge whether the best interests of a child are being served, and in the absence of abuse of judicial discretion this court will not disturb a trial court’s judgment. (Kimbell v. Kimbell, 190 Kan. 488, 491 , 376 P. 2d 881 ; Jackson v. Jackson, 181 Kan. 1 , 309 P. 2d 705 ; Goetz v. Goetz, 180 Kan. 569 , 306 P. 2d 167 .) However, where an abuse is affirmatively shown in the record, this court has not hesitated to reverse, modify or otherwise change the order of a trial court. (Lindbloom v. Lindbloom, 177 Kan. 286 , 279 P. 2d 243 ; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 147 Kan. 485 , 77 P. 2d 946 ; Jackson v. Jackson, supra.)” (1. c. 532.) “Where the issue exists only between the parents, as in the instant case, and no third party is involved, then the primary question to be determined by the court is the welfare and best interests of the children. All other questions are subordinate. (Merriweather v. Merriweather, 190 Kan. 598, 599 , 376 P. 2d 921 ; Kimbell v. Kimbell, supra; In re Vallimont, supra; Collins v. Collins, 177 Kan. 50 , 276 P. 2d 321 .)” (1. c. 533.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bergen v. Bergen

2. ““The provisions of G. S. 1949, 60-1509, requiring that the testimony of a complaining spouse as to the delinquencies of the other, alleged as grounds for the divorce, be corroborated, do not require corroboration of each and every detail concerning which testimony has been given. The requirement of corroboration is met if there remains corroborated testimony of acts or conduct sufficient to justify a judgment for divorce.” (Syl. f 7.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Saint v. Saint

3. ““Where the contest for child custody is between a parent and a third party, 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 custody as against the third party or others who have no permanent or legal right to custody. . . (p. 533)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2 Kan. App. 2d 265 - Aslin v. Seamon