Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 KAN 469 - Bavuso v. Angwin

Bavuso v. Angwin’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
4
states following
May 1961
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 1961

4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

90194919501960decided

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 Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Ball · Williams v. Payne · Crumley v. Weiner

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

  1. ““Under the provisions of G. S. 1935, 60-3105, the plaintiff had an absolute right to dismiss his action without prejudice at any time prior to final submission. Citation of authorities other than the statute is unnecessary. Since he had this absolute right, the defendants were not in any way prejudiced by 'his failure to serve a copy of his motion to dismiss an [on] opposing counsel. By tire same reasoning it was not error for the court to dismiss plaintiff’s action without notice to the defendants — further, the judgment of dismissal in this case was not such a ‘default judgment’ as is contemplated by rule 48, and neither was it necessary, under the circumstances, for plaintiff to submit the journal entry of the order of dismissal to opposing counsel for approval or objection under rule 49. . . .” (p.473.)”
    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.