Munger v. Beiderwell’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 1977
17 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 Price v. Atchison Water Co. · Mayes v. Kansas City Power & Light Co. · Berryhill v. Stufflebean · Nelson v. Schippel · Lofland v. Croman
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.
““In response to the motion leveled against the seventh amended petition the trial court struck general allegations of negligence contained in various paragraphs of that petition. The ruling did not constitute error. General allegations of negligence are sufficient as against a demurrer when not challenged by motion to make definite and certain, but they are not sufficient when previously so challenged. (A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co v. O’Neill, 49 Kan. 367 , 30 Pac. 470 ; St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co. v. French, 56 Kan. 584 , 44 Pac. 12 ; Neosho County v. Spearman, 89 Kan. 106 , 130 Pac. 677 ; Kirkland v. Railway Co., 104 Kan. 388 , 179 Pac. 362 .) The same rule applies with equal force to general allegations of contributory negligence. (Price v. Water Co., 58 Kan. 551, 558, 50 Pac. 450 ; Kirkland v. Railway Co., supra, p. 392.)” (p. 187.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Assuming, for the moment, the respective causes of action were actually pleaded in separate counts, appellant was, nevertheless, obliged to plead the substantive facts concerning the negligence upon which he relied. He could not plead such negligence in general terms when properly and timely challenged by motion. . . . Appellant urges it is never necessary to narrate the evidence but only to plead the substantive facts. True, but general charges of negligence do not constitute the pleading of substantive facts.” (p. 189.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The petition must contain . . . “Second: A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language, and without repetition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.