Hill v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2002
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 Wear v. Wear · White v. White · Lyerla v. Lyerla · Simmons v. Simmons · Lewis v. Lewis
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As may be seen, there is no finding of a change of circumstances since the original custody order in fact, finding No. 3 is to the effect that there has been no change. A reading of the trial court's oral remarks at the close of the hearing reinforces the conclusion that the order was based on a simple `best interests' finding, and not on a `change of circumstances' finding. The deciding factors seemed to be the mother's living style, which the trial court couldn't `condone,' and the more commodious living quarters available in the father's house. Neither of those elements had changed since about two months before the divorce. "Kansas law in this area appears clear to us. `The trial court has continuing jurisdiction over custody of minor children in a divorce action and may, on proper motion and notice, change or modify any prior order of custody when a material change in circumstances is shown. ' Hardenburger v. Hardenburger, 216 Kan. 322 , Syl. ¶ 1, 532 P.2d 1106 (1975) (Emphasis added). In applying that rule, it is well settled that a decree awarding child custody is res judicata with respect to the facts existing at the time of the decree. Simmons v. Simmons, 223 Kan. 639, 642 , 576 P.2d 589 (1978); Lewis v. Lewis, 217 Kan. 366, 368 , 537 P.2d 204 (1975). It is immaterial that the original custody order is based on the parties' settlement agreement and not on evidence presented at a contested hearing. In Hardman v. Hardman, 203 Kan. 825, 827 , 457 P.2d 86 (1969), the c”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"3. That each party resides at the respective residence occupied by each party at the time of the divorce, on March 5, 1979."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Hill
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.