Tatum v. Tatum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. ““A deserted spouse is not required to ‘dog’ her husband’s footsteps in an endless quest to achieve reunion. By his established lifestyle the husband revealed a predisposition to wandering, short-term employment, discontent with jobs and instability. Florine’s own job and die house she had purchased no doubt represented her only security. The law would indeed be both inastute and unrealistic if it expected a wife to abandon her only precious possessions in a fruitless quest after an errant husband who had given no indication of his desire to return and stay. Florine’s status as a deserted spouse was not lost either by inaction or non-pursuit. Affirmative acts, such as suing for divorce or separate maintenance, active resistance to reconciliation efforts, or cohabitation with another may be indicative of a changed character in the spousal relationship. They are all absent in this case. A legal change might also manifest itself through a formal separation agreement, refusal to join the spouse whenever the opportunity may arise, or some other outward recognition tiiat the marriage relationship had come to an end. Florine did none of diese tilings.” 736 P.2d at 508-09 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 547 - Redditt v. McDonald's Restaurant · BROWN v. ALLEY

2. “spouse. The second woman sought death benefits for herself as the decedent's widow and for her children as the decedent's stepchildren. The Tatum Court held that the first woman was entitled to death benefits, and that neither the second woman or her children were entitled to any benefits because they did not fall within any statutorily cognizable class of authorized claimants. . 16 In Tatum, the Court recognized tha three categories of persons are statutorily”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Bryan

3. “a. a surviving spouse as defined in this section; b. a child as defined in this section; or c. any other person dependent in fact upon the employee and refers only to a person who receives one-half (%) or more of his support from the employee”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Johnson v. Bryan