Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 88 KAN 428 - Dennis v. Perkins

Dennis v. Perkins’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
10
states following
December 2002
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2002 · most notably Barnes v. American Fertilizer Co. (1925), Hoard v. Jones (1925)

28 state decisions — followed in 10 states

901913192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 James v. James · Walker v. Walker's · Kehr v. Smith · Wells v. Stout · Zimmer v. . Settle

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

  1. ““I think that the true principle is that a renewal of cohabitation will put an end to all or any of the provisions of a separation deed, so far as the language of the deed, properly construed by the light of surrounding circumstances, shews that its provisions were only intended to take effect whilst the separation lasted. . . . Separation deeds are often very complicated, and some provisions may be intended to apply even in the case of a reconciliation, while others may be quite inapplicable to such a state of things, and I should prefer to construe each deed by the light of its surrounding facts rather than to lay down a crystallized rule.” (p. 529.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the contract and circumstances be such that the permanent resumption of the relation of husband and wife would naturally and presumptively imply the abrogation of certain of its terms only, there is no reason why such effect should not be given.” (p. 435.) ■”
    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.