State v. Dick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““3. That the above-described premises were on the 3d day of November, 1939, and for a number of months prior thereto, used by the defendant, F. E. Fink, as a common nuisance; contrary to the provisions of the intoxicating-liquor laws of the state of Kansas, and bore a reputation as being so used in the community in and surrounding Rago, Kan., and said premises continued to be so used and to bear such reputation in said community to and inclusive of May 29, 1940. “4. That the defendant, J. H. Wills, lived at Norwich, Kan., fourteen miles from Rago, was in poor health, and of considerable means. During the period of perhaps a year prior hereto, Wills had been in Rago only once, and that to inspect and order a new floor put in the café building, which was some considerable time prior to the issuance of the temporary injunction herein. He stayed rather close about his own home, but after service of the temporary injunction he employed an attorney and learned that Fink had an internal revenue license for retailing intoxicating liquors, and his attorney notified Mrs. Wilson of the injunction proceedings, disclaiming any present intention of canceling the lease, demanded that she see 'that any improper use of said premises be ended at once.’ That no other measures were taken by said defendant, Wills, to eject Mrs. Wilson, or the defendant, Fink, from said premises. “5. That on the night of May 29, 1940, the sheriff raided said property and found some 25 people in the so-called dance”

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

2. ““It must "be remembered that the primary purpose of the injunction proceeding, insofar as real estate is concerned, is to prohibit its use as a liquor nuisance, and the mere fact the owner did not know of the wrongful use would not defeat the action. To successfully maintain the action against the real estate it is not necessary to prove actual sales. (See State v. Lewis, 63 Kan. 265 , 65 Pae., 258, for a more complete discussion.)” (p. 236.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State ex rel. Harley v. Ramsey

3. ““Anyone who knowingly permits any building or tenement owned or leased by him or under his control, or any part thereof, to be used in maintaining a common nuisance, or, after being notified in writing of such use, omits to take all reasonable measures to eject therefrom the person so using the same, shall be deemed guilty of assisting in maintaining such nuisance.””

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