Eagon v. Eagon’s Empirical Analysis
1899
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1982
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 Tucker v. Tucker · Reed v. Reed · State v. Buffington · State v. Barker
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This requirement has left the record of the testimony sought to be elicited in an unsatisfactory condition. It is difficult in most cases to present to the court explicitly in the form of questions the exact . proof offered. Where the questions do not clearly show the nature of the testimony an offer of proof ought to be received. In fact, the precise question involved can thus be more clearly presented to the trial court and preserved in the record for review. We approve the practice of making the tender.” (Page 701.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Judy v. Buck““The father stands in a very different relation toward his married son or daughter than a stranger would occupy towards the same persons. Natural affection would imply that the advice and counsel extended to them were prompted by good motives and unworthy objects cannot be presumed. They ought positively to be shown or necessarily deduced from the facts and circumstances detailed.” (Eagon v. Eagon, 60 Kan. 697, 705 , 57 Pac. 942 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Krenkle v. Selleck““ ‘The reciprocal obligations of parent and child last through life, and the duty of discharging these divinely implanted obligations is not and cannot be destroyed by the child’s marriage.’ ” (p. 704.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Krenkle v. Selleck
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.