Briley v. Nussbaum’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 1967
2 federal appellate · 13 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 State v. Pfefferle · Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Fajardo · State v. Ross · Smith v. Iola Portland Cement 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The instruction, concerning the right of the plaintiffs to the services of Hazel Briley did not incorrectly state the law. If the defendants had desired a modification of that instruction, it was their duty to request the court to give such a modification. That does not appear to have been done. They cannot complain of failure of the court so to do. (State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 , 12 Pac. 406 ; State v. Ross, 77 Kan. 341, 348 , 94 Pac. 270 ; State v. Page, 80 Kan. 389, 391 , 102 Pac. 780 ; Hamilton v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 353, 357 , 148 Pac. 648 ; State v. Taylor, 119 Kan. 260 , 237 Pac. 1053 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Foley v. Crawford
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.