2 Kan. App. 2d 406 - Thurman v. Cundiff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 7 district · 34 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is not necessary, to impose liability, that the defendant expressly direct the arrest. Nor need he be present when the arrest is actually made. However, he must take some active part in bringing the arrest about, that is, there must be some affirmative act on his part which induces the officer to make the arrest.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deadman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona · 161 F. Supp. 2d 1248 - Kelly v. Bank Midwest, N.A.

2. ““Defendants next contend the allowance of the amendment constituted an arbitrary abuse of discretion by the trial court. K.S.A. 60-215 governs the amendment of pleadings and provides that leave to amend be freely given when justice so requires. Amendments after the commencement of trial are within the discretionary powers of the trial court; the allowance or denial of an amendment will not constitute grounds for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that the substantial rights of the adverse party were affected by the trial court’s ruling, and, further, that the ruling was a clear abuse of discretion. Garcia v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 216 Kan. 591 , 533 P.2d 1242 (1975); Hass v. Preferred Risk Mutual Ins. Co., 214 Kan. 747 , 522 P.2d 438 (1974); Commercial Credit Corporation v. Harris, 212 Kan. 310 , 510 P.2d 1322 (1973). The trial court is given wide latitude and discretion in permitting or refusing amendments of pleadings in the interest of justice. Hoover Equipment Co. v. Smith, 198 Kan. 127 , 422 P.2d 914 (1967). We recognize such discretion is not unbridled. Walker v. Fleming Motor Co., 195 Kan. 328, 330-331 , 404 P.2d 929 (1965). As a general rule, however, amendments to pleadings are favored in law and shall be allowed liberally in the furtherance of justice to the end that every case may be presented on its real facts and determined on its merits. Walker v. Fleming Motor Co., supra, p. 330. Trial courts are given broad discretionary powers concerning the amendm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 4 Kan. App. 2d 267 - Key v. Clegg

3. “There is evidence that Bob Cundiff [defendant] told one deputy the plaintiff had taken down or cut “our fence” and had driven down “our private drive” after being told to stay out. Bob Cundiff testified he told a deputy, “That man came right at me and veered off” and he asked the deputy, “What can we do about it ...” A deputy testified that he was told by Bob Cundiff that plaintiff had destroyed Bob Cundiff’s wire. Plaintiff observed Bob Cundiff engaging in an animated conversation with a deputy and pointing at the plaintiff just prior to the arrest. After talking with Bob Cundiff, one of the deputies accused plaintiff of having cut the fence and intruding. There is no evidence in the record that Bob Cundiff at any time attempted to explain to the sheriff’s deputies that plaintiff was his mother’s lessee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Deadman v. Valley Nat. Bank of Arizona