Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 KAN 496 - Hurst v. Brown

Hurst v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
May 1977
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1977

8 state decisions

401949195019601970decided

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 · City of Cheeryvale v. Wilson · Sheedy v. Willoughby · State ex rel. Mitchell v. State Highway Commission · Page v. Van Tuyl

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.

  1. ““. . While a demurrer is rarely used in attacking a petition for declaratory judgment when a party elects to so employ it we have held the test to be applied in determining its sufficiency is whether such pleading sets forth facts which make it clearly appear there is an actual controversy between the parties and just what that controversy is. See City of Cherryvale v. Wilson, 153 Kan. 505 , 112 P. 2d 111 . When the first cause of action is measured by the foregoing rule we have little difficulty in concluding the trial court’s action in overruling the demurrer on the ground now under consideration was proper. “This appeal, as we have seen, is limited solely to the sufficiency of the petition. No one contends the trial court rendered a declaratory judgment on the facts as pleaded. Notwithstanding, appellant seeks to enlarge the scope of our review by attempting to argue and have us decide the merits of the cause. This we cannot do. Under the statute (G. S. 1935, 60-3302) giving us appellate jurisdiction our province, in fact the extent of our power, is to reverse, vacate, or modify or sustain the trial court’s judgment.””
    2 later decisions 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.