Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 Kan. App. 2d 558 - Tanner v. Hancock

5 Kan. App. 2d 558 - Tanner v. Hancock’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently August 2014

11 state decisions

401980199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1963

Relies on Landrum v. Taylor · National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Taylor · 3 Kan. App. 2d 298 - Alexander Construction Co. v. Weaver · Corning Truck & Radiator Service v. J. W. M., Inc. · Fischer v. Kipp

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

  1. “" ‘[A] properly authenticated judgment rendered by a court of one state is, under the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 1, entitled in the courts of another state to the force, the effect, and the full faith and credit it has by law in the state where the judgment was rendered.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The underlying Kansas judgment upon which the Missouri judgment was based simply cannot be ignored. A “foreign judgment” registered under the Missouri provisions shall not be considered a “foreign judgment” that can subsequently be registered in Kansas ... as such is not within the spirit or the intent of the act.”
    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.