Henrickson v. Drotts’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably 9 Kan. App. 2d 659 - Allegri v. Providence-St. Margaret Health Center (1984), 7 Kan. App. 2d 603 - Gomez v. Hug (1982)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 40 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 Vera Croley, Etc. v. Matson Navigation Company, David E. Bouler v. Matson Navigation Company · Duffin v. Patrick · Hindes v. United States · Grimm v. Pallesen · Brown v. Wichita State University, PEC, Inc.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘“Rule 116 of this court relating to appellate practice is broader than Section 60-252 (a) in that it requires in all contested matters submitted to a judge without a jury, the judge shall, in addition to stating the controlling facts required by 60-252, briefly state the legal principles controlling his decision. (Duffin v. Patrick, 212 Kan. 772 , 512 P. 2d 442 .) It may be said that the entering of summary judgment is also a contested matter and that when considered with Section 60-256 (d) the district court should state what it considers to be controlling facts and the legal principles upon which summary judgment was granted. Otherwise, this court upon appellate review will be required to explore and consider every possible legal theory which may be said to be involved in the summary judgment. Judges of a court of record, unlike a jury which may render an unreasoned decision in a general verdict, must, under our statute and Rule 116, “go on the line,” so to speak, and render a “reasoned decision” — that is, assign reasons for the decision rendered.’ (pp. 664-665.)” (p. 439.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] court should be cautious in granting a motion for summary judgment when resolution of the dispositive issue necessitates a determination of the state of mind of one or both of the parties.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The requirements of K.S.A. 60-252 and Rule No. 116 [now Rule No. 165, 225 Kan. lxxii ] of this court are for the benefit of this court in facilitating appellate review. Waiver of such requirements is not within the rights of the parties or the authority of the court below.””
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.