Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 198 Kan. 413 - Jarnagin v. Ditus

Jarnagin v. Ditus’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
states following
November 2001
most recently cited

4 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Lawrence v. Deemy (1969), Potter v. Northern Natural Gas Co. (1968)

4 district · 39 state decisions

18019671970198019902000decided

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 Brick v. City of Wichita · Sullivan v. Sullivan · Herl v. State Bank of Parsons · Pessemier v. Zeller · Fisher v. Pendleton

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

  1. ““This court has now laid down a definite yardstick for the granting of such judgments. Generally it must appear conclusively that there remains no genuine issue as to a material fact and that one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A mere surmise or belief on the part of the trial court, no matter how reasonably entertained, that a party cannot prevail upon a trial will not justify a summary judgment where there remains a dispute as to a material fact which is not clearly shown to be a sham, frivolous or so unsubstantial that it would obviously be futile to try it. A party against whom a summary judgment is being considered must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the facts under consideration.” [Citing cases.]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In order to effectively toll the statute, a part payment must have been voluntarily and deliberately made on the indebtedness in question by the debtor, or by someone at his direction, and under such circumstances as to amount to an acknowledgement of the debtor’s existing liability on such obligation.”
    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.