Tillotson v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Mitchell v. City of Wichita (2000), Black v. Don Schmid Motor, Inc. (1983)
51 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 Evangelist v. Bellern Research Corporation · Brown v. Hardin · State ex rel. Wheat v. Moore · Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc. · Nave v. Hixenbaugh
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The pre-trial conference and the order entered thereon are an important part of the procedural process. They are provided to acquaint each party in advance of trial with the factual contentions of the opposite parties as to matters in dispute. The opportunity for maneuver and surprise during the trial is reduced. As a result of the pre-trial conference all parties are better able to prepare their testimony on the issues to be tried.’ ” 241 Kan. at 565 (quoting Tillotson v. Abbott, 205 Kan. 706, 709 , 472 P.2d 240 [1970]).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In any action, the court shall on the request of either party, or may in its discretion without such request, direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a conference to consider: (1) The simplification of the issues; (2) The trial of issues of law the determination of which may eliminate or affect the trial of issues of fact;' (3) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; (4) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; (5) The limitation of the number of expert witnesses; (6) The advisability of a preliminary reference of issues to a master; (7) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action. The court in its discretion may, and shall upon the request of either party make an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and which limits the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel; and such order when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The interpretation placed upon a statute by an administrative agency whose duties are to carry the legislative policy into effect should be given consideration and weight when the statute is ambiguous and the intent of the legislature is not cletar. (See Lowden v. Garvie, 152 Kan. 388 , 103 P. 2d 832 ; Graves v. Armstrong Creamery Co., 154 Kan. 365 , 118 P. 2d 613 , 140 A. L. R. 1267n.) However, this does not mean this court must follow an administrative interpretation placed upon a statute when the interpretation of the administrative body is erroneous. We will examine this statute in light of the facts of this case to determine its applicability.” (p. 713.)”
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.