Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 KAN 86 - Godsoe v. Harder

Godsoe v. Harder’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2019

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

10019471950196019701980199020002010decided

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 State v. Deuel · Royse v. Grage · Hurd v. Baty · Suter Bros. v. Hebert · Dean v. Metcalf

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. “[w]e never decide cases altogether on grammatical construction and punctuation, where to do so would do violence to the clear intent of the legislature. The grammatical construction and punctuation, however, must be given significance. They cannot be ignored entirely. A fairly safe means of ascertaining the intention of the legislature is an examination of what it finally said in its enactments. There is no mystery about grammatical construction. Its rules are those designed to enable men to put their ideas on paper in such a form that readers, sometimes years later, may read what was written and know what the writer intended to say. When the interpretation of a statute is before us we consider whether the language used given a correct grammatical construction leads to a reasonable result and expresses what the legislature evidently intended to say. When it does so we follow it. In considering such a question we examine the entire section and in a proper case the entire chapter in connection with the general matter with which the legislature was dealing.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In any proper case service may be made on minors, ... by a summons personally served or by publication notice as provided in this code, the same as upon other persons defendants in action. If there be a natural or legally appointed guardian for such minor, . . . service shall also be made in the same manner upon such guardian. If there be no legally appointed guardian for such minor, . . . or if such guardian fail to appear and answer in the action within the time fixed by the summons or publication notice, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for such minor, . . . and such guardian ad litem shall file proper pleadings in such cause, which shall include a general denial of the plaintiff’s petition, as shall put the plaintiff to proof of his cause of action . . . The appointment cannot be made until after the service of the summons in the action, and no default judgment shall be rendered against such minor, . . .” (Emphasis added.)”
    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.