Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Kan. 170 - Shivers v. Carlson

Shivers v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
March 1973
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 1973

10 state decisions

40195519601970decided

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 Rasing v. Healzer · Balandran v. Compton

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

  1. ““. . . Appellant did not object to special question No. 17 and 18. Neither did he request a special question as to whether his contributory negligence, if the jury should so find, was a proximate cause of the collision and the resulting damage. Since he did not enter his objection at the proper time, he is not in a good position to complain now.” (1. c. 177.) (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.