Davis v. Fraser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... As the trier of the facts, it was the province and duty of the court to determine what weight and credence it would give to the testimony of the witnesses on both sides of the case. Of course, a jury or court cannot arbitrarily or capriciously refuse to consider the testimony of any witness but, on the other hand, it is not obliged to accept and give effect to evidence which, in its honest opinion, is unreliable, even though such evidence is uncontradicted. ( State, ex. rel., v. Woods, 102 Kan. 499 , 170 Pac. 986 ; Potts v. McDonald, 146 Kan. 366 , 69 P.2d 685 ; State v. Jones, 147 Kan. 8, 11 , 75 P.2d 230 ; Briney v. Toews, 150 Kan. 489, 494 , 95 P.2d 355 ; Johnson v. Soden, 152 Kan. 284 , 103 P.2d 812 .) "Plaintiff contends this court has frequently reversed a trial court on findings of fact where there was no evidence to support the findings made. That is true where there were affirmative findings of fact unsupported by the record. Here, however, we have a negative finding of fact — a very different thing. ( Potts v. McDonald, supra, p. 369 .) Here the court, after hearing all of the evidence, was convinced the claim should not be allowed, and so found. The court quite apparently either did not believe the testimony offered in support of plaintiff's claim or the evidence was not sufficiently clear and convincing to persuade the court concerning the validity of the claim. "Appellate courts cannot nullify a trial court's disbelief of evidence ( Kallail v. Solomon, 146 K”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Winters · Schroeder v. Richardson

2. ““In passing, however, we may say there were various facts and circumstances in connection with the testimony offered in support of plaintiff’s claim which would appear to have justified serious doubt, if not absolute disbelief, .with respect to the justice of the claim. Defendant’s testimony served to cast additional doubt upon various aspects of the claim. Manifestly we cannot disturb the judgment.” (p. 440.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wert v. Phillips