Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 KAN 142 - Martens v. Green

Martens v. Green’s Empirical Analysis

1923

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
May 1956
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1956

8 state decisions

301923193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Albright v. Warkentin · Leslie v. Gibson · Erving v. Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co.

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

  1. ““. . . A defense to a suit in partition does not necessarily mean the filing of an answer traversing the issues raised in a plaintiff’s petition. Defendants in partition may very well assent to all the plaintiff’s averments, and yet have vital interests to protect, that is, to defend at every step in the proceedings.” (p. 145.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.