Wyckoff v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . It is well settled in this state that G. S. 1949, 60-759 does not permit tire naming of another defendant after the statute of limitations has run as to plaintiff’s cause of action. This point was decided in the recent case of Logan-Moore Lumber Co. v. Black, 185 Kan. 644 , 347 P. 2d 438 , where it was held: “ ‘It is clear that a pleading, though filed in time against one party under the foregoing statute, cannot be amended after the expiration of the statute of limitations to name another party as a defendant. (Anderson v. Railroad Co., 71 Kan. 453 , 80 Pac. 946 ; Garrity v. Board of Administration, 99 Kan. 695 , 162 Pac. 1167 ; Challis v. Hartloff, 133 Kan. 221 , 299 Pac. 586 ; see, also, Garney v. Railroad Co., 112 Kan. 823 , 212 Pac. 659 ; Lukens v. Bayne, 118 Kan. 547 , 235 Pac. 841 ; and Commercial Nat’l Bank v. Tucker, 123 Kan. 214 , 254 Pac. 1034 .)’ (l. c. 651.) “In Challis v. Hartloff, supra, it was said: “ ‘The filing of a petition against A reciting facts which would authorize an action to be maintained against B will not toll the statute as to B, if he is not made a defendant until after the statute has run.’ (Syl. f 2.) “In Challis v. Harloff, supra, it was said: “ ‘The general rule is well settled that, where new parties defendant are brought in by amendment, the statute of limitations continues to run in their favor until thus made parties. The suit cannot be considered as having been commenced against them until they are made parties.’ (1. c. 223.) “In”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Skeen v. Sisters of St. Joseph

2. ““The filing of a petition against A reciting facts which would authorize an action to be maintained against B will not toll the statute as to B, if he is not made a defendant until after the statute has run. (Following Garrity v. Board of Administration, 99 Kan. 695 , 162 Pac. 1167 , and Wyckoff v. Bennett, 191 Kan. 180 , 380 P. 2d 332 .)” (Syl. ¶ 1.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schmidt v. Nauman