Cool v. Cool’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Williams v. Williams (1976), In re the Marriage of Larson (1995)
2 district · 24 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 Shammas v. Shammas · Zeller v. Zeller · Moran v. Moran · Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Township · Preston v. Preston
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order for perjured testimony to warrant the setting aside of a judgment under K.S.A. 60-260(b), it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence to have been willfully, purposely and falsely given, to have been material to the issue tried, and to have significantly controlled the result reached; furthermore, the movant must show that the fact of the falsity of the testimony could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence in time to offset it at the trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““• • • [W]e are faced with our fixed rule tihat in matters concerning the awarding of alimony to a party in a divorce action, the court is vested with considerable judicial discretion, and its order will not be set aside or vacated in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of that discretion. (Moran v. Moran, 196 Kan. 380 , 411 P. 2d 677 ; . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gill v. Gill
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.