Lambeth v. Bogart’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 1963 · most notably Hamilton v. Binger (1947), Carrington v. British American Oil Producing Co. (1943)
36 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 Heniff v. Clausen · Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. Smith · Christie v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Mercantile Firm of O. Fagerberg & Brother v. Johnson
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The appellant’s abstract shall include a specification of the errors complained of, separately set forth and numbered. . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have repeatedly ruled that even an assignment of error which merely alleges the trial court erred in rendering the judgment does not present any specific question for review. (Fagerberg v. Johnson, 48 Kan. 434 , 29 Pac. 684 ; Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 716 , 121 P. 2d 196 .) Such an assignment, when actually made, amounts to nothing more than a statement that the judgment is wrong. It specifies no particular error and presents nothing for review. “The rule requires that the specification of errors complained of be set forth and numbered in the abstract. Here there was no compliance with the rule in appellant’s abstract or original brief. It was not until appellee filed her brief and argued the case as well as she was able to argue it, in view of appellant’s general objection to the judgment, that appellant even attempted to comply with Rule No. 5, in a reply brief. Manifestly, such late attempted compliance with the rule, if otherwise held to be sufficient, did not give appellee the intended notice of alleged errors to which she was properly entitled. The record before us requires that the appeal be dismissed. In view of that conclusion it manifestly would be inappropriate to discuss any of the contentions made on the attempted appeal. We may, however, say that as a matter of justice and fairness between the parties, assuming the trial court had jurisdiction to render the last judgment, it would appear appellant would hav”
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.