Kappenman v. Kappenman’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently October 2018
10 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 Malcolm v. Malcolm · Lien v. Lien · Paul v. Paul · Gross v. Gross · In Re Marriage of Dusing
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the amount and value of the property involved; (2) the intricacy and importance of the litigation; (3) the labor and time involved; (4) the skill required to draft pleadings and try the case; (5) the discovery procedures utilized; (6) the existence of complicated legal problems; (7) the time required; (8) whether briefs were required; and (9) whether an appeal to this [C]ourt is involved.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Dooley v. Dooley · Streier v. Pike“procedural due process and fundamental fairness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.