Burton v. Ostertag’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1963
8 state decisions
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 Board of Commissioners v. McIntosh · Bell v. Johnson · Durham v. Carbon Coal & Mining Co. · Harrison v. Henderson · Belknap Hardware Manufacturing Co. v. Sleeth
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is quite well settled in this court (Durham v. C. C. & M. Co., 22 Kan. 232 ; Belknap v. Sleeth, 77 Kan. 164, 167 , 93 Pac. 580 ; Bell v. Johnson, 142 Kan. 360 , 46 P. 2d 886 ; Heifling v. City of Sharon, 152 Kan. 512, 517 , 106 P. 2d 680 ), as well as generally elsewhere (see cases annotated in 80 A. L. R. 624, et seq.) that when a party to an action gives testimony the effect of which is to defeat his claim and establish a valid defense relied upon by his opponent, he is bound by such testimony and cannot recover.””
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.