Small v. Small’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
2 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 1997 · most notably Haley v. Hershberger (1971), Koch Engineering Co. v. Faulconer (1980)
2 district · 26 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 Rathbun v. United States · American Seating Co. v. Zell · Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp. · Dovel v. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. · Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. United States
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defense of lack of jurisdiction may be asserted by motion with other defenses without waiving the objection. (Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 139 F. 2d 871 , cert. den. 322 U. S. 740 , 64 S. Ct. 1057 , 88 L. Ed. 1573 .) “The old distinction between a general and special appearance loses its significance under K. S. A. 60-212 (b) as a party may plead to the merits and at the same time contest jurisdiction over his person. The purpose of the provisions is to permit the combining of an objection to the jurisdiction with pleadings on the merits without the old ritual of first entering a special appearance. (United States v. Balanovski, 236 F. 2d 298 , cert. den. 352 U. S. 968 , 1 L. ed. 2d 322, 77 S. Ct. 357 , reh. den. 352 U. S. 1019 , 1 L. ed. 2d 561, 77 S. Ct. 555 .) . . .” (1. c. 538.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In a proceeding for child custody the subject matter or res is the child. “It is a well established rule of this court that jurisdiction of a court to consider and give custody of a child to one parent or the other depends in principle upon the domicile of the child. (Tompkins v. Garlock, 189 Kan. 425 , 370 P.2d 131 ; Hannon v. Hannon, 186 Kan. 231 , 350 P.2d 26 ; Moloney v. Moloney, 163 Kan. 597 , 185 P.2d 167 ; Kruse v. Kruse, 150 Kan. 946 , 96 P.2d 849 ; Wear v. Wear, 130 Kan. 205 , 285 Pac. 606 .) “The new code provides the only conditions under which the district court shall have jurisdiction to make provisions for the custody of a child as follows: “‘. . . if (t) the child is physically present in the county, or (ii) domicile of the child is in the state, or (jit) the court has previously exercised jurisdiction to determine the custody or care of the child who was at such time domiciled in the state. . . ” p. 535.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keller v. Guernsey
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.