Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 KAN 360 - Bell v. Johnson

Bell v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
May 1971
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 1971 · most notably Blackmore v. Auer (1960), Alamo v. Del Rosario (1938)

4 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

10019351940195019601970decided

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 James v. Grigsby · Cedar State Bank v. Olson · Durham v. Carbon Coal & Mining Co. · Wallach v. Wylie · Coy v. Cutting

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

  1. ““Appellee urges further that as against a demurrer, every inference is to be resolved favorably to the plaintiff; that his honesty and good faith are presumed, and that if there are any contradictions even in his own testimony the demurrer should have been overruled. It may be conceded that as an abstract proposition the latter contention is correct. The rule is that in considering a demurrer to evidence, the court should consider only facts and inferences favorable to plaintiff (James v. Grigsby, 114 Kan. 627 , 220 Pac. 267 ) and that the court must consider as true all portions of the testimony which tend to prove the allegations of plaintiff’s petition, giving plaintiff the benefit of all inferences (Windus v. Bodecker, 132 Kan. 857, 858 , 297 Pac. 702 ) and that in ruling on a demurrer the court has no authority to weigh evidence (Coy v. Cutting, 138 Kan. 109, 113 , 23 P. 2d 458 ). On the other hand, where the plaintiff personally testifies to a state of facts which clearly precludes his recovery, the effect cannot be avoided.” (p. 363.)”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Plaintiff, on his direct as well as indirect examination, made statements against his own interest by which he is bound. There was no evidence to a contrary effect or from which a different implication or conclusion could be drawn. The demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained.” (p. 366.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““And where testimony is drawn from the lips of a party or his agents, no wrong will ordinarily be done such party if the testimony so given be accepted as true.” (p. 243.)”
    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.