State v. Craven’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently July 2001
24 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 State v. Hill · Estate of Maguire v. McNutt · State v. Frames · Kauz v. United States · White v. Kincade
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the general rule is that trial courts are bound by stipulations of die litigants, courts are warranted in relieving parties from stipulations improvidently or mistakenly made. State v. Craven, 215 Kan. 546, 548 , 527 P.2d 1003 (1974). In Craven , we summarized the circumstances justifying such relief: “ ‘ “[A] trial court may, in the exercise of judicial discretion, upon proper cause shown, relieve a party from a stipulation entered into in the course of a judicial proceeding when it appears that such relief is necessary to prevent manifest injustice to die parties seeking it, and that the granting of such relief will not place die adverse party at any disadvantage by reason of having acted in reliance upon die stipulation. It has thus been held that a stipulation should only be set aside after placing die parties in approximately the same positions in which they were or in positions of substantially equal advantage. And on appeal, the determination of die trial court as to the propriety of granting such relief will not ordinarily be interfered with, except where a manifest abuse of discretion is disclosed ....”’ 215 Kan. at 548 (quoting 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Stipulations § 13).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the record points out, defendant repeatedly contradicted earlier statements given by the state’s witnesses, and even stated that one witness “was not telling the truth.” In the light of such evidence we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.”
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.