Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 KAN 104 - Johnson v. Burns

Johnson v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2016

18 state decisions

5019451950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Fry v. Dewees · Sawin v. Osborn · Deeds v. Deeds · State v. Foren

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

  1. ““In an action to partition real estate under G. S. 1949, 60-2101 to 60-2114, it is held that in administering the provisions of the pertinent sections of the code, the trial court has the same powers as were exercised by chancery courts under equity practice, including full power to settle all questions involved on just and equitable principles.” (Syl. ¶ 4.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““. . . Ordinarily where there is as wide a discretion reposed in a trial court as is reposed in it in partition actions we are reluctant to interpose our judgment for that of the trial court. (See State v. Foren, 78 Kan. 654 , 97 Pac. 791 , also Deeds v. Deeds, 108 Kan. 770 [774], 196 Pac. 1101 .)” (p. 111.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In an action to partition real estate the trial court has power to make any order necessary to make a just and equitable partition between the parties. The record in this case is examined and it is held that there is nothing in the record to justify this court in holding that the trial court abused its discretion.” (Syl. ¶3.)”
    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.