Rost v. Heyka’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 1990
11 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. Addis · Harris v. Morrison · Lodge v. Order of United Commercial Travelers of America · Hoisington v. Brakey · Ervin v. Morris
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.
“". . . The remainder of the estate belongs to the heirs and, as we have seen, all the heirs were parties in the former action when the questions involved were litigated. In his capacity as administrator he was a representative of the heirs to whom the estate was to be partitioned and was in fact in privity with them and the judgment against him in his capacity as heir is conclusive against him in his capacity as administrator. (Donifelser v. Heyl, 7 Kan. App. 606 , affirmed in 59 Kan. 779 .) In Harris v. Morrison, 100 Kan. 157 , syl. ¶ 2, 163 Pac. 1062 , it was held that— “ ‘ In an action to determine the ownership of the residue of property left after paying the debts of the deceased person, which action is prosecuted by one to whom the deceased person had contracted to leave the property at his death, against the beneficiary under the will executed by the deceased person, a judgment against the beneficiary is final and conclusive and will be binding on the executor in the final distribution of the estate.’ (See, also, cases cited on the point.) “The general rule is that a judgment binds not only the parties to the action but also those who are in privity with them in the estate, and in the situation mentioned the administrator was so far in privity with the heirs as to be concluded by the determination in the first action. Cases somewhat in point are: Ervin v. Morris, 26 Kan. 664 ; Hoisington, Sheriff v. Brakey, 31 Kan. 560 , 3 Pac. 353 ; Ellis v. Crowl, 46 Kan. 100 , 26 Pa”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““A fact brought in issue and judicially determined in a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusively settled by the judgment therein as to the parties to the action and those in privity with them and cannot be relitigated in a later action.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Faust v. Carson
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.