Muck, Administratrix v. Claflin’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1982
12 state decisions
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 Gray v. Jenkins · Coffman v. Shearer · Cloonan v. Goodrich · State Highway Commission v. Hembrow
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(b) Scope of examination. Unless otherwise ordered by the court as provided by section 60-230 (b) or (d), the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the examining party or to the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts. It is not ground for objection that the testimony will be inadmissible at the trial if the testimony sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. A party shall not require a deponent to produce, or submit for inspection any writing prepared by, or under the supervision of, an attorney in preparation for trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cropp v. Woleslagel““It will be understood that our decision is based on the facts before us. We should not be understood as stating that discovery through the contents of a liability insurance policy is never proper under K. S. A. 60-233 and 60-226 (b). Such interrogatories would be proper if they were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. It should also be noted that what is said here is limited to the single issue of discovery of policy limits under K. S. A. 60-233 and 60-226 (b).” (p. 601.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cropp v. Woleslagel““Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible as tending to prove negligence or other wrongdoing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cropp v. Woleslagel
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.