Washington v. Claassen’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably Albers v. Nelson (1991), Rosenbaum v. Texas Energies, Inc. (1987)
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 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 Maltby v. Sumner · Sutherland v. Sutherland · Attebery v. Prentice · Baldridge v. Centgraf · Madrid v. Spears
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is the duty of every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a contract before signing it.” Commercial Credit Corporation v. Harris, 212 Kan. 310, 314 , 510 P.2d 1322 (1973). “When a person signs a written contract he is bound by its terms, in the absence of fraud, undue influence or mutual mistake as to its contents, regardless of the person’s failure to read and understand its terms.” Washington v. Claassen, 218 Kan. 577, 580 , 545 P.2d 387 (1976).”
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.