Young v. Newbold’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1980
2 district · 8 state decisions
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 Gribbon v. . Freel · State Ex Rel. Collins v. Parks · Lockway v. Modern Woodmen of America · Aggers v. Bridges · Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co v. Wier
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only respect in which the defendant could possibly be prejudiced was in the time in which he might answer. He could have filed a motion asking for more time as readily as he could have filed a special appearance and motion to quash, and the court would have given it to him as a matter of course. The defect did not go to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant, nor render the summons void. At most it was only irregular and voidable.” (Young v. Newbold, 114 Kan. 86 , 217 Pac. 269 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foster v. Motley
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.