Staab v. Staab’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . In this case the first wrongful act or known breach of trust by the trustee was their repudiation of the trust on July 11, 1941, the date the beneficiaries demanded settlement under the trust agreement. In passing we pause to note that appellant’s contention the cause of action arose in 1931, that is, on the date of the execution and delivery of the deed to them, is entirely unsound. The father lived until May, 1937. Manifestly, during his lifetime appellees had no interest in his property which they could assert against the trust he had created. Thereafter appellants recognized the trust and lulled appellees into a sense of confidence and security until the confidence reposed was breached. Equity and good conscience will not permit appellants to now take advantage of a delay in filing suit occasioned by their own wrongdoing and that is true whether the wrong consisted in a breach of trust formerly recognized or in actual fraud and its successful concealment.” (p. 75.)”

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

2. ““[T]he statute [of limitations in such an action] begins to run from the date the trust is repudiated, Flitch v. Boyle, 147 Kan. 600 , 78 P.2d 9 ; Allbert v. Allbert, 148 Kan. 527 , 83 P.2d 795 , and cases therein cited, or [as] the rule is . . . sometimes stated, . . . the statute does not begin to run from the date of demand on the trustee and repudiation by him, but starts to run from the date the trustee commits a wrong or breach of his trust by which he becomes chargeable.” Staab v. Staab, 158 Kan. 69, 75 , 145 P.2d 447 (1944).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Kan. App. 2d 858 - Cousatte v. Lucas

3. ““The plaintiff must frame his petition upon a distinct and definite theory, and upon that theory the facts alleged must state a good cause of action. If the petition is not drawn upon a single and definite theory, or there is such a confusion of theories alleged that the court cannot determine from the general scope of the petition upon which of several theories a recovery is sought, it is insufficient.” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sullivan v. Paramount Film Distributing Corp.