Kane v. Kane’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Grosskopf v. Grosskopf (1984), Broadhead v. Broadhead (1987)
3 federal appellate · 27 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 Sarah Fall v. Elizabeth Eastin · Massie v. Watts · McElreath v. McElreath · 49 Cal. 2d 322 - Rozan v. Rozan · Warren v. Warren
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In granting a divorce, the court shall make such disposition of the property of the parties as appears just and equitable, having regard for the respective merits of the parties and the condition in which they will be left by the divorce, the party through whom the property was acquired, and the burdens imposed upon the property for the benefit of either party and children. The court may decree to the wife reasonable alimony out of the estate of the other having regard for his ability and may order so much of his real estate or the rents and profits thereof as is necessary be assigned and set out to either party for life, or may decree a specific sum be paid by him.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““We now come to the third issue raised by this appeal, that is, whether the district court had the power — for such is the essence of jurisdiction — to make disposition of the land of the defendant located outside the borders of Wyoming. “We think the issue settled, at least since Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1 , 30 S.Ct. 3 , 54 L.Ed. 65 , 23 L.R.A., N.S., 924 (1909), that the court of one state has no power to directly affect title to land located wholly within the borders of another. Decrees and judgments purporting to this effect are void, and to the extent the decree before us purports to so do it must fail. * * * »”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e do not question the contention of the defendant that whether a property-settlement is just and equitable should be determined as of the date the decree was entered, but feel compelled to note that the disposition of property of the parties is an equitable function of the court, Storm v. Storm, Wyo., 470 P.2d 367 (1970), and that while a mere expectancy cannot be the subject of division, a distinction can and must be made between an estate that may come into existence in the future and future benefits to be derived from an estate already in existence. Here, the Montana ranch is owned by the parties. What may happen to it in the future may be somewhat uncertain, but the trial court was required to deal with it as a presently existing and material asset of the marriage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Muller v. Muller
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.