Kipp v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 1974
16 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 Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Kunkel · Kipp v. Goffe · State Highway Commission v. Puskarich · Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Hutchings, Sealy & Co. · Delaney v. Great Bend Implement 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In K.P. Rly. Co. v. Kunkel, 17 Kan. 145, 166 , it was said: "`While the distinction between actions on contract and those for tort is plain and broad, yet, ... it is not always easy to determine from the allegations of the petition in which class the action must be placed; for contracts are often alleged in actions which clearly sound in tort, and as often tortious acts and conduct of the defendant are averred in actions purely ex contractu. ' "In Pomeroy on Code Remedies, 5th ed., section 464, it is stated: "`But when the contract relied upon is implied, and is simply the fictitious promise which the law infers from the tortious acts themselves, it may be doubted whether it is possible, in accordance with the true principles of the reformed pleading, to frame a complaint or petition in all cases which shall show on its face that the plaintiff has elected to bring his action either in tort or on contract. In one class of liabilities it is certainly possible to do so; namely, in those which result from the defendant's fraudulent representations and deceits. The allegation of a scienter is indispensable in the action ex delicto based upon such a liability, and distinguishes it in a marked manner from the correlative action based upon the implied promises. But when the liability results from the wrongful taking or conversion of chattels, from trespasses, negligences, or other similar kinds of wrongs, the very facts which are alleged in the action of tort are the facts from whic”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nichols v. Nold
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.