Clark v. Amos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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

1. “"Touching the trial court's ruling on defendants' demurrer, it is the law that where a person has a cause of action against an adversary and is duped through misrepresentation of fact by the latter whereby the injured party permits the statute of limitations to bar his action, he can maintain an action for deceit against the wrongdoer under some circumstances, not on account of the original negligence but on account of the subsequent wrongdoing—the misrepresentation of fact which deceived the injured party—with the consequence that the time bar ran against the original action. ( Pierson v. Holdridge, 92 Kan. 365 , 140 Pac. 1032 ; Cramer v. Railways Co., 112 Kan. 298 , 211 Pac. 118 .) While there is a diversity of opinion on this subject (L. R. A. 1917F 720) the Kansas view accords with Rochester Bridge Co. v. McNeil, 188 Ind. 432 , 122 N.E. 662 ; Urtz v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 202 N. Y. 170 , 95 N. E. 711 , and Hobaica v. Byrne, 214 N. Y. S. 759, 761; Desmarais v. Company, 79 N. H. 195, 107 Atl. 491 ." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 23 Kan. App. 2d 812 - Robinson v. Shah