Grigsby v. Coyle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since its enactment in 1931 this court has been earnestly and repeatedly urged to modify this particular statute by rules of interpretation. But we have been constrained to hold that there is no ambiguity in the statute, consequently its potency cannot be minimized by interpretation. (Auto Trunk Co. v. Hahn, 138 Kan. 36 , 23 P. 2d 585 ; Id., 139 Kan. 17 , 29 P. 2d 1115 ; Ohio Hydrate & S. Co. v. H. W. Underhill C. Co., 141 Kan. 213 , 40 P. 2d 337 ; Morse v. Schaake, 141 Kan. 473 , 41 P. 2d 1009 ; Owen-Fields v. Allen W. Hinkel D. G. Co., 143 Kan. 184 , 53 P. 2d 496 .)””

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

2. ““ ‘. . . that said defendant shall prosecute his appeal to effect and without unnecessary delay, and satisfy such judgment and costs as may be rendered against him therein.’ ””

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