Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 KAN 724 - Wesner v. O'Brien

Wesner v. O'Brien’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
11
states following
February 2001
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2001 · most notably Bray v. Landergren (1934), McCormick v. McCormick (1910)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 11 states

50189619001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Busenbark v. Busenbark · Lewis v. Lewis · Dillon v. Heller · Chapman v. Chapman

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

  1. ““The essential matter is that the defendant shall have legal notice of the proposed appropriation, and this is afforded by the publication notice which warns the defendant that one of the purposes of the proceeding is the sequestration of the land. It refers interested parties to the petition, in which the land is definitely described, and wherein it is asked that the land be set apart as alimony.” (p. 728.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The theory that the limit of the power of the court in a divorce suit where there is no personal service is the dissolution of the marriage does not obtain in this state. In the early case of Lewis v. Lewis, 15 Kan. 181 , it was held that upon such service a decree barring the defendant of any interest in the plaintiff’s property was valid and binding.” (Page 729.)”
    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.