Henry v. Edde’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action: “First. By the plaintiff, before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court where the trial is by the court.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Buckley v. Buckley · Kinsch v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.

2. ““Under the provisions of G. S. 1935, 60-3105, the plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss his action without prejudice at any time prior to final submission. Citation of authorities other than the statute is unnecessary. Since he had this absolute right, the defendants were not in any way prejudiced by 'his failure to serve a copy of his motion to dismiss an [on] opposing counsel. By tire same reasoning it was not error for the court to dismiss plaintiff’s action without notice to the defendants — further, the judgment of dismissal in this case was not such a ‘default judgment’ as is contemplated by rule 48, and neither was it necessary, under the circumstances, for plaintiff to submit the journal entry of the order of dismissal to opposing counsel for approval or objection under rule 49. . . .” (p.473.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Buckley v. Buckley

3. ““In this state it has been held that the jurisdiction for the appointment of a guardian of a minor is in the county of the minor’s domicile in the absence of any express statute upon that question. (Connell v. Moore, 70 Kan. 88 , 78 Pac. 164 .) And in Foran v. Healy, 73 Kan. 633 , 85 Pac. 751 , it was held that the jurisdiction to appoint a guardian over the person and estate of a lunatic belongs exclusively to the probate court of the county where such lunatic has a permanent residence. By analogy there is every reason to hold that the jurisdiction to appoint a permanent guardian over the person and estate of a lunatic belongs exclusively to the courts of the state where such lunatic has a permanent residence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Kan. App. 2d 246 - In Re the Guardianship & Conservatorship of Miller