Kent v. Kent’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably Lops v. Lops (1998), Community State Bank v. Strong (2011)
4 federal appellate · 16 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 155 Ga. App. 343 - Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Pinyan · Boozer v. Higdon · 214 Ga. App. 193 - Sorrells Construction Co. v. Chandler Armentrout & Roebuck, P.C. · Powell v. Powell · Weaver v. Jones
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.
“Where, as here, the party obligated to make payments under a decree believes that circumstances have arisen which, under the decree, authorize [a decrease in] payments, but there are questions of fact in that regard, that party acts at his or her peril in unilaterally [decreasing] payments. By doing so, that party risks being found in contempt, or, at any rate, liable for all payments, if the other party chooses to file a motion for contempt. The better practice would be for the party obligated to make payments to raise the issue in an action for declaratory relief.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. Perry“[Collateral estoppel applies where an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment. That determination is then conclusive in a subsequent action between the same parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lops v. Lops“We need not determine whether the contempt court’s order was, on its face, appealable. It was the husband’s duty to obtain an appealable order on that issue, and to the extent he did not, he cannot now argue that collateral estoppel should not apply.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lops v. Lops
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.