16 Kan. App. 2d 818 - Noon v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We, the jury, duly impaneled and sworn upon our oaths, present the following answers to the questions submitted by the court: 1. Do you find any of the parties to be at fault? Answer: Yes _X No _ (If your answer is “No,” your deliberations are completed. The foreperson should sign the verdict and inform the bailiff that you have reached a verdict. If your answer is ‘Yes,” proceed to questions two and three.) 2. Considering all of the fault at one hundred percent, what percentage of the total fault do you attribute to each of the following parties for causing the damages for which plaintiff seeks compensation in this case: Kathie A. Mommens 49% Leo Kelvin Ottley 51% Total 100% (Answer question three only if the percentage of Kathie A. Mommens’ fault is less than fifty percent of the total fault.) 3. Without considering the percentage of fault found in question two, what are the damages sustained by Kathie A. Mommens for which she seeks compensation in this case? A. Medical Expenses to date $1,500 B. Loss of Consortium on behalf of Robert Mommens $0 C. Disability, Pain and Suffering $1,500 TOTAL DAMAGES $3,000”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mommens v. Ottley

2. “A failure to meet the threshold requirements of K.S.A.1991 Supp. 40-3117 does not preclude an action for actual expenses and pecuniary loss resulting from a collision. Key v. Clegg, 4 Kan.App.2d 267, 270 , 604 P.2d 1212 , rev. denied, 227 Kan. 927 (1980). While failure to meet the threshold precludes an action or award of damages for nonpecuniary losses, if liability is established, a plaintiff can still collect for pecuniary losses such as medical expenses and lost wages. Mayer v. Harris, 224 Kan. 231, 232-33 , 579 P.2d 715 (1978).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mommens v. Ottley

3. ““An instruction is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that, if the trial error had not occurred, there was a real possibility that the jury would have returned a different verdict.” Noon v. Smith, 16 Kan. App. 2d 818 , Syl. ¶ 2, 829 P.2d 922 (1992).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jackson v. City of Kansas City