1 Kan. App. 2d 142 - Prather v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 district · 17 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) [T]he nonresident must purposefully do some act or consummate some transaction in the forum state; (2) the claim for relief must arise from, or be connected with, such act or transaction; and (3) the assumption of jurisdiction by the forum state must not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, consideration being given to the quality, nature and extent of the activity in the forum state, the relative convenience of the parties, the benefits and protection of the laws of the forum state afforded the respective parties, and the basic equities of the situation.” (Syl. If 3.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 4 Kan. App. 2d 704 - Davis v. Grace · 2 Kan. App. 2d 331 - Rosedale State Bank & Trust Co. v. Stringer

2. ““K.S.A. 60-237(b) authorizes a number of sanctions for the trial court’s use against parties unjustifiably resisting discovery orders. Rendition of default judgment is one of them, respecting which, in Lorson v. Falcon Coach, Inc., 214 Kan. 670 , 522 P.2d 449 , it was held: ‘The sanction of judgment by default for refusal to make discovery under K.S.A. 60-237 is the most severe sanction which a court may impose and its use must be tempered by the careful exercise of judicial discretion to assure that imposition thereof is merited. However, where there is evidence that a party has acted in deliberate disregard of reasonable and necessary orders of a court, and where such party is afforded a hearing and an opportunity to offer evidence of excusable neglect, the imposition of a stringent sanction will not be disturbed.’ (Syl. 3.) “In Vickers v. City of Kansas City, 216 Kan. 84 , 531 P.2d 113 , it was further held: ‘Where a party fails to comply with a production order in the course of discovery proceedings, the trial court is required in the exercise of its power of judicial discretion to determine which of the variety of available sanctions it will impose by its judgment. In making this determination the trial court should consider whether or not the documents to be produced go to a dispositive issue in the case, and whether the party seeking discovery may therefore be protected by the imposition of a sanction short of dismissal; and the court also should consider whether the p”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Kan. App. 2d 982 - Independent Manufacturing Co. v. McGraw-Edison Co.

3. “to be performed in whole or in part by either party”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Continental American Corporation v. Camera Controls Corporation