Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 Kan. 124 - Lightcap v. Mettling

Lightcap v. Mettling’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2005
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2005

10 state decisions

6019661970198019902000decided

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 Schmid v. Eslick · Elliott v. Behner · Ehrsam v. Borgen · Bedenbender v. Walls · Sparks v. Getz

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. ““K. S. A. 60-261 provides that no error in either the admission or exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court, or by any of the parties, is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict or otherwise disturbing a judgment, unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The section further admonishes a trial court to disregard any error or defect in fhe proceeding which does not effect the substantial rights of the parties. “K. S.A. 60-2105 long has been the law of this state (see G. S. 1949, 60-3317), and directs that on appeal this court is to disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining, where it appears from the whole record that .substantial justice has been done by the judgment of the trial court.” (p. 128.)”
    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.