Foster v. Humburg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 79 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[D]amages ... do not constitute the ‘cause of action.’ The ‘cause of action’ is the wrong done, not the measure of compensation for it, or the character of relief sought. A ‘cause of action’ arises from a manifestation of a right or violation of an obligation or duty. (Friederichsen v. Renard, 247 U.S. 207 , 62 L.Ed. 1075 , 38 S.Ct. 450 ; Travelers Fire Ins. Co. v. Ranney-Davis Mercantile Co. (10th Circuit), 173 F.2d 844 ; Wright v. Brush, 115 F.2d 265 .) Damage is not the cause of action. It is merely a part of the remedy which the law allows for the injury resulting from a breach or wrong. The ‘right of action’ is merely the right to pursue a remedy, and the ‘cause of action’ is the concurrence of the facts giving rise to an enforceable claim.””

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker v. Fleming Motor Co. · Schmeck v. City of Shawnee

2. ““It is a well-established rule in this state that where the original petition alleges a cause of action but does so imperfectly and with insufficient detail, and the additional allegations of an amended petition are only an enlargement and amplification of the averments of the original by setting out more definitely that which was previously imperfectly pleaded and do not set up a new cause of action, the fact that the statute of limitations has run when the amended petition is filed is not a bar to recovery, for in such case the amended petition relates back to the date of filing of the original one. (Smith v. LaForge, 170 Kan. 677 , 228 P. 2d 509 ; Talbott v. Farmers Union Co-op Elevator, 174 Kan. 435, 439 , 256 P. 2d 856 ; Sundgren v. Topeka Transportation Co., 178 Kan. 83 , 283 P. 2d 444 ; Maddox v. Neptune, 175 Kan. 465 , 264 P. 2d 1073 .) The court erred in sustaining defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ amended petitions.” (p. 69.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Redmond v. Meier

3. ““An aggrieved party who perfects a timely appeal from an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a petition, may have a review of prior rulings of which he complains, even though those rulings were made more than two months before the perfection of such appeal, provided that he gives notice he is appealing from such ruling.” (p. 70.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atkinson v. Dalton