Supreme Court of Kansas· 7/17/1975
Andler v. Andler
Citations
- 538 P.2d 649
- 217 Kan. 538
- 1975 Kan. LEXIS 464
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- whether Social Security disability payments made for benefit of children of disabled father constituted satisfaction of father s child support obligation is question of law to be resolved by courts
- “The purpose of social security is the same as that of an insurance policy with a private carrier, wherein a father insures against his possible future disability and loss of gainful employment by providing for the fulfillment of his moral and legal obligations to his children”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Schroedeh, Fromme
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
66 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- In Re the Marriage of WaljeCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 1994-06-24· cited 170×
- Mask v. MaskNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1980-12-09· cited 65×
- Binns v. MaddoxCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 1976-02-18· cited 65×
- Children & Youth Services of Allegheny County v. ChorgoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-04-19· cited 65×
- Weaks v. WeaksSupreme Court of Missouri· 1991-12-17· cited 61×
- Potts v. PottsSupreme Court of Iowa· 1976-04-14· cited 59×
- In Re Marriage of HenryIllinois Supreme Court· 1993-10-21· cited 57×
- Newman v. NewmanSupreme Court of Iowa· 1990-02-21· cited 46×
- Guthmiller v. GuthmillerNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1989-11-29· cited 43×
- Baker v. List and Clark Construction Co.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1977-04-09· cited 41×
- Hinckley v. HinckleyWyoming Supreme Court· 1991-06-05· cited 39×
- McClaskey v. McClaskeyMissouri Court of Appeals· 1976-11-16· cited 36×
- Mooneyham v. MooneyhamMississippi Supreme Court· 1982-10-27· cited 33×
- Pontbriand v. PontbriandSupreme Court of Rhode Island· 1993-03-29· cited 33×
- Drummond v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1998-07-29· cited 31×
- Whitaker v. ColbertCourt of Appeals of Virginia· 1994-04-05· cited 30×
- Commonwealth v. VogelsongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-03-11· cited 30×
- Hanthorn v. HanthornNebraska Supreme Court· 1990-09-28· cited 30×
- Bowden v. BowdenCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama· 1983-01-26· cited 26×
- In Re the Adoption of K.J.B.Supreme Court of Kansas· 1998-05-29· cited 24×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Flemming v. NestorSupreme Court· 1960-06-20· cited 1,508×
- Horton v. HortonSupreme Court of Georgia· 1963-07-03· cited 66×
- Cash v. CashSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1962-02-05· cited 62×
- Fowler v. FowlerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1968-06-25· cited 46×
- Sweeney v. Merchants National BankSupreme Court of Kansas· 1972-07-19· cited 43×
- Thompson v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Kansas· 1970-06-13· cited 32×
- Loomis v. LoomisSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1953-03-09· cited 25×
- Ediger v. EdigerSupreme Court of Kansas· 1971-01-23· cited 21×
- Martin v. MartinWashington Supreme Court· 1962-01-18· cited 21×
- Schmiedigen v. CelebrezzeDistrict of Columbia· 1965-10-05· cited 19×
- State Ex Rel. Londerholm v. DoolinSupreme Court of Kansas· 1972-05-06· cited 17×
- Kipping v. KippingTennessee Supreme Court· 1948-02-28· cited 16×
- Cohen v. CohenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida· 1971-03-30· cited 15×
- Hinton v. HintonSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1947-02-17· cited 14×
- Gould v. AwaparaCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1963-02-28· cited 13×
- Cohen v. CohenSupreme Court of Florida· 1971-12-08· cited 9×
- Roston v. FolsomE.D. New York· 1957-12-31· cited 7×
- Hopwood v. HopwoodNebraska Supreme Court· 1960-02-05· cited 7×
- Koons v. KoonsSupreme Court of Kansas· 1962-06-09· cited 6×
- Palow v. KitchinSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1953-08-01· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.