I found it very useful, if for no other reason than it's been several years since I read through S&Z. The comparison to Kierkegaard is familiar, but I point out that it is Jaspers' term Eksistenz (sp?) that is used in one place in S&Z, although not attrubted to Jaspers specifically. My sense is that there were lots of cooks in the stew of existentialism in the early 20th Century.

I have not studied Husserl enough to know if his fairly common use of "transcendental" derives directly from Kant, but since that is Kant's term and since MH had Husserl as mentor, a struggle by MH with that tradition is to be expected. Derrida does not think highly of Kant's employment of "faculties" to explain the apriori, yet it is Kant we still tussle over.

I have read critics of MH who claim that he was an outlaw who ignored the tradition, so evidences to the contrary are welcome.
 

It terms of his relationship with Kant, teaching at Marburg, put Heidegger at the center of neo-Kantian philosophy. That milieu probably guided his relationship with Kant more than anything else.
 

Doc Haugeland was an impressive gent notwithstanding a career at Greenspan U aka Uni of Chi. though the few writings of his on Kant Ive perused seem quite traditional (with...transcendental read in...the substance dualist sense, not a cognitive sense). Yet the categories are (were) common currency from Aristotle. Pointing out the assumptions of empiricists (eg "synthetic a priori" and space-time, the Understanding) was IK's concern --as you probably are aware, but many Pomos forget Kant's responding to Hume and Newton as much as well to catholic theologians.

It's not always evident Kant checkmates Humean arguments, IMHE. He posits...an idealist alternative--but Kant didn't really offer some rebuttal, based on necessary arguments, tho they're taken as such (and granted Hume-land's not a very comforting place).

The phenomenology types seemed to accept Kant on most fundamental issues, yet the analytical trad. had already offered powerful critiques of Kant--especially his synthetic a priori account of mathematics-- before the turn of the century (e.g via those scoundrels Frege (who wasn't exactly too admiring of Husserl & Co)...and Russell). The Pomo attacks on Kant and other greats often seem like a species of marxist-freudianism really, not really rigorous philosophy but mo akin to ideology (and Derrida hisself still in that tradition).