15 Kan. App. 2d 374 - State v. Parson’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2018
6 district · 15 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 Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners · Jackson Trak Group, Inc. Ex Rel. Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Mid States Port Authority · Goetz v. Board of Trustees, Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System · Penachio v. Walker · State v. Roach
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The doctrine of res judicata is a bar to a second cause of action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action. It is founded upon the principle that the party, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated, or had an opportunity to litigate, the same matter in a former action in a court of competent jurisdiction. The doctrine of collateral estoppel is a bar in an action upon a different claim as to certain matters in issue which were determined in a former judgment. The distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel is based on the distinction between a cause of action and issues in a cause of action.’ ” State v. Parson, 15 Kan. App. 2d 374, 377 , 808 P.2d 444 (1991) (quoting Penachio v. Walker, 207 Kan. 54, 57 , 483 P.2d 1119 [1971]).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[C]ollateral estoppel . . . prevents relitigation in a different claim of issues conclusively determined in a prior action. [Citation omitted.] Under Kansas law, collateral estoppel may be invoked where the following is shown: (1) a prior judgment on the merits which determined the rights and liabilities of the parties on the issue based upon ultimate facts as disclosed by the pleadings and judgment, (2) the parties must be the same or in privity, and (3) the issue litigated must have been determined and necessary to support the judgment. [Citation omitted.]” Jackson Trak Group, Inc. v. Mid States Port Authority, 242 Kan. 683, 690 , 751 P.2d 122 (1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“With no hesitation we find the requisite privity existing here insofar as Harp Well and Pump Services, Inc., and Parson-an employer and its employee-are concerned.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Klaassen v. Atkinson
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.