Heniff v. Clausen’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 1961 · most notably Hamilton v. Binger (1947), Holmes v. Kalbach (1953)
33 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 Brewer v. Harris · Drenning v. Board of Commissioners · Phillipson v. Watson · Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith · Central Fibre Products Co. v. State Tax Commission
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Defendant filed a motion for a new trial which was considered by the court and overruled and judgment was rendered for plaintiff upon the general verdict of the jury. In due time defendant filed its notice of appeal. This appeal was only from the judgment rendered by the court upon the general verdict. There was no appeal taken from the order of the court overruling the motion for a new trial, or from any other ruling of the corut adverse to the defendant. “This is an appellate court. In cases tried in the district court there may be many questions passed upon which the party appealing does not, for some reason, care to ask this court to review. The appeal is necessarily limited to the questions from which an appeal is taken. The result is that the appeal brought to us is on the judgment of the court. Examining the judgment in this case we find nothing wrong with it unless it is some of the trial errors set out by the defendant in its motion for a new trial. Since no appeal has been taken from that order we are unable to review it. Our cases on that point are numerous.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In this court appellant does not assign error upon the court’s ruling of May 16, 1941, overruling his motion for a new trial, and nowhere in his brief or oral argument does he complain of that ruling. Apparently he is satisfied with it; in any event, as a matter of law, he is deemed to have waived any objection he ever had to that ruling. No question respecting that ruling is before this court for review. (Gas Co. v. Dooley, 73 Kan. 758 , 84 Pac. 719 ; Bennett v. Supply Co., 80 Kan. 437 , 102 Pac. 511 ; Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 , . . . )” (p. 718.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Palmer v. Helmer
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.