2 Kan. App. 2d 540 - Teter v. Corley’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2008
17 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 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Smith · 92 F. Supp. 620 - Aler v. Travelers Indemnity Co. · Simon v. Milwaukee Automobile Mutual Insurance · Gabrelcik v. National Indemnity Co. · 91 So. 2d 123 - Leteff v. Maryland Casualty Company
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law concerning the establishment and continuance of a ‘residence’ is well stated in Estate of Schoof v. Schoof, [ 193 Kan. 611 , 396 P.2d 329 (1964)], as follows: “ ‘The establishment of residence requires the concurrence of two factors: one physical, the other intellectual. There must be bodily presence at a location coupled with intent to remain there either permanently or for an indefinite period, before residence can be said to have been acquired. A residence once established is presumed to continue until the same has been abandoned. (Keith v. Stetter, 25 Kan. 100 ; Palmer v. Parish, 61 Kan. 311, 313 , 59 Pac. 640 .) To effect a change of residence, there must be transfer of bodily presence to another place coupled with an intent to abide in the new location either permanently or indefinitely. (Ford, Adm’x, v. Peck, 116 Kan. 74 , 225 Pac. 1054 .) The length of stay in the new abode is not of controlling importance, for no stated period of time is required to complete a change of residence; the change may be effectuated on the first day of arrival in the new location provided the requisite intent to establish residence therein be present. . . .’ ( 193 Kan. at 614 .) “In reality, two separate intentions are involved: one to abandon the old location and one to abide in the new. If the last intention be formed, it necessarily includes the first. Arnette v. Arnette, 162 Kan. 677 , Syl. ¶ 4, 178 P.2d 1019 (1947). “We believe the definition set forth in Estate of Schoof v. ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The purpose of the “temporary substitute” clause in an automobile liability policy is to afford continuous coverage to an insured while limiting risk to one operating vehicle at a time for a single premium, and, therefore the insured vehicle for which the substitution is made must be withdrawn from use by some overt act which would reasonably preclude the possibility of both vehicles being driven at the same time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.