10 Kan. App. 2d 14 - Scott v. Strickland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 district · 33 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[A] person holding any legal or equitable interest in realty may be an owner for the purposes of the mechanic’s lien statutes [citation omitted]. “[The Scott’s] reliance on Schwaller Lumber is misplaced in light of the changes effected in K.S.A. 60-1103 since that decision was reached. The lien statement no longer has to be served upon ‘the owner’ but must only be delivered to ‘any one owner of the property.’ Thus, the statute now recognizes the possibility of joint ownership and inferentially overrules the conclusion of Schwaller Lumber that one owner is not agent for another. The statute now permits service on one owner to satisfy the entire notice to the owner requirement.” 10 Kan. App. 2d at 22-23 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 Kan. App. 2d 72 - Owen Lumber Co. v. Arthur Chartrand · Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand

2. ““So far as is now pertinent, K.S.A. 1968 Supp. 60-1103(a) provides that a subcontractor shall mail a copy of his lien statement to the owner of the propertij. The Watsons advance the argument that the term ‘owner’ implies the entire ownership of the real estate in question, and that a subcontractor must mail copies of his lien statement to all owners in order to perfect his lien as to any one of them. In other words, the appellants would have us define the term ‘owner’ as ‘owners’ and would have us require that all the owners be served before a statutory lien may come into being. “We have said that die purpose of requiring service of a notice of lien is to advise the owner of die property of die existence of die lien, afford him opportunity to investigate die claim and determine its validity and to avoid paying the same account twice. [Citation omitted.] “It is the general rule that service of a mechanic’s lien statement on one cotenant is not binding on a cotenant, or odier owner, and such is true even though die co-owner happens to be a spouse. [Citations omitted.] “We conclude that die [subcontractor’s lien] claims are not enforceable against Doris M. Watson, since she is not shown to have been personally served with notice. . . . “ . . . [A] mechanic’s lien may be enforced against die interest of an owner who has properly been served with the required statutory notice, even though the interest of other owners who were not so served may not be subject to the lien. [Citatio”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand

3. “IT IS ORDERED THAT defendant’s motion for leave to file amended counterclaims (Doc. 25) is granted. The clerk shall cause the proposed amended counterclaims, attachment B to defendants motion, to be filed in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT plaintiffs motion to dismiss the counterclaims (Doc. 21) is denied in part, and granted in part. Defendant’s fifth counterclaim for breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance, as amended, is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 98 F. Supp. 2d 1244 - FDX Supply Chain Services, Inc. v. North Face, Inc.