Dyer v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Touching the admission of improper evidence, no particular matters are pointed out for our scrutiny and determination. If this has reference to the admission of parol testimony to show that the warranty deed from Goss to Johnson was only an equitable mortgage to secure to her the purchase money for the eighty acres which was to belong to Robbins if and when he repaid her, or to Dyer if Robbins failed and Dyer stood back of him and paid in his stead, then we come to a question of law which is thoroughly settled in this jurisdiction. Such evidence is competent, and the rule is the same whether the matter involved concerns either realty or chattel property. (McNamara v. Culver 22 Kan. 661 , syl. ¶ 2; Butts v. Privett, Sheriff, 36 Kan. 711 , 14 Pac. 247 ; Pope v. Nichols, 61 Kan. 230 , 59 Pac. 257 ; Martin v. Allen, 67 Kan. 758, 761 , 74 Pac. 249 ; Hubbard v. Cheney, 76 Kan. 222, 226 , 91 Pac. 792 ; Winsor v. Winsor, 78 Kan. 885 , 95 Pac. 1136 ; Saylor v. Crooker, 89 Kan. 51 , syl. ¶ 1, 130 Pac. 689 ; Boam v. Cohen, 94 Kan. 42, 145 Pac. 559 ; Root v. Wear, 98 Kan. 234, 237 , 157 Pac. 1181 .) “See, also, an extended treatise on this subject in L. R. A., 1916 B, 18-610.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duncan v. Essary

2. ““Of course when plaintiff talked with strangers he spoke of the defendant as the owner of the property; and of course when he desired to lease the land for gas and oil he sent the lease to her for signature. He would hardly be expected to explain to third parties the informal and trusted relationship which existed between them. All these circumstances were in evidence for what they were worth. At the trial defendant’s counsel was at liberty to make the most of them in his argument; but they serve little purpose here. It would not .avail even if he succeeded in raising doubt in our minds touching the correctness of the trial court’s findings of fact. The making of those findings was the function of the trial court, not ours.” (p. 343.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kolar v. Eckhardt