Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 Kan. 539 - Dennis v. Smith

Dennis v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
June 1984
most recently cited

2 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1984

2 district · 14 state decisions

120196019701980decided

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 Davis-Wellcome Mortgage Co. v. Long-Bell Lumber Co. · Smith v. Wichita Transportation Corp. · Morris v. Wicks · Gereke v. Peoples Bank · Fine v. Neale Construction Co.

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

  1. ““. . . On this point, the controlling rule is well stated in Fine v. Neale Construction Co., 186 Kan. 537 , 352 P. 2d 404 , this day decided, where it was held: “ Where findings of fact are attacked for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, the supreme courts power begins and ends with the determination whether there is any competent substantial evidence to support them, and where findings are so supported they are accepted as true and will not be disturbed on appeal, and in such a case it is of no consequence that there may have been much contradictory evidence adduced at the trial which, if believed by the trial court, would have compelled entirely different findings of fact and an entirely different judgment.’ ” (p. 546.)”
    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.