22 Kan. App. 2d 702 - Bates v. Hogg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 district · 37 state decisions

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.

1. ““The fundamental principle of the law of damages is that a person who suffers personal injuries because of the negligence of another is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical care and expenses for the treatment of his or her injuries, as well as the cost of those reasonably certain to be incurred in the future.” (Emphasis added.) 22 Kan. App. 2d at 704 (citing 22 Am. Jur. 2d, Damages § 197, p. 169).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Martinez v. MILBURN ENTERPRISES, INC. · Ellsworth v. Schelbrock

2. ““Moreover, as the Kansas Court of Appeals noted in Bates, allowing a plaintiff to recover the amount of charges written off would result in a windfall to the plaintiff. Permitting Plaintiffs in this case to enter into evidence medical bills for which neither Plaintiffs nor collateral source had any responsibility to pay and allowing Plaintiffs to recover that amount does not further the purpose of the collateral source rule. The rule is intended to prevent a defendant tortfeasor from escaping from full liability for the consequences of his or her wrongdoing and to prevent a windfall to the tortfeasor, who would otherwise profit from the benefits provided by a third party to the injured party. It is not intended to provide a tmndfall to plaintiffs. As the Kansas Supreme Court has noted, ‘the basic principle of damages is to make a party whole by putting it back in the same position, not to grant a windfall.’ [Citation omitted.]” (Emphasis added.) Wildermuth, 2002 WL 922137 , at .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Martinez v. MILBURN ENTERPRISES, INC.

3. ““(6) Disclosure of expert testimony. “(A) A party shall disclose to other parties the identity of any person who may be used at trial to present expert testimony. “(B) Except as otherwise stipulated or directed by the court, this disclosure . . . shall state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion. “(C) These disclosures shall be made at the times and in the sequence directed by the court. . . . The party shall supplement these disclosures when required under subsection (e)(1).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 27 Kan. App. 2d 518 - Frans v. Gausman