Libel v. Corcoran’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2012
16 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 Frame, Administrator v. Bauman · Hoard v. Jones · Wuester v. Folin · Bowen, Administrator v. Hathaway · Hubler v. Bethel Lutheran Church
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This is essentially a fact case. Appellant’s principal contentions upon appeal in effect ask us to reweigh those facts in the light of any conflict or inconsistency shown in the evidence. Tins, of course, is beyond the scope of our review, which is simply to ascertain whether the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. In malting this determination we are required to consider the evidence in its most favorable aspect to the party who prevailed in the court below (Frame, Administrator v. Bauman, 202 Kan. 461, 468 , 449 P. 2d 525 ).” (p. 183.)”
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.