Row v. Artz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This court under numerous and varying circumstances has, in conformity with well established principles, declined to decide issues where its judgment could not be made effective. (Dickey Oil Co. v. Wakefield, 153 Kan. 489 , 111 P. 2d 1113 , and cases therein cited.) In other words, when a judgment is merely on an abstract question of law or fact and the authority of the court cannot be vindicated by the enforcement of process a judgment is a useless thing. Under such circumstances courts simply withhold their judgment. (See State, ex rel., v. Smith, 140 Kan. 461 , 36 P. 2d 956 .) The rule has been applied not only in cases pertaining to private controversies but in actions involving the public interest where no actual controversy remained and where a judgment could not amount to a judicial decision. (Ellis v. Landis, 118 Kan. 502 , 235Pac. 851.)” (p.72.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hornaman v. Vaughan

2. ““The original action and the expanded issues were equitable in character. The court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties. The equitable powers of chancery courts have been greatly expanded. They have power and authority to make a full and final adjudication of all matters properly before them when necessary for a complete and final adjudication. They are not compelled to leave such matters for separate and future litigation.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 12 Kan. App. 2d 563 - Warwick v. Gluck