Clark v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 28 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the outset it would be helpful to consider the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act as a whole and the legislative purpose of enacting it. The legislative history and background for the act is contained in the Report of the Special Committee on Consumer Protection to the 1974 legislature pertaining to proposal No. 17 governing landlord-tenant relations. In its report, the special committee points out that the subject of study was ‘the need for additional legislation governing landlord-tenant relations.’ In general, existing Kansas statutes in this area related to the duration and termination of various tenancies and forcible detainer actions. At the time of the report, there was little or no statutory law in Kansas governing the more substantive aspects of landlord-tenant relationships. The report noted that the Uniform Residential Landlord-Tenant Act was approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws at its August 1972, annual meeting. The committee then makes the following conclusions and recommendations: “ ‘Upon analysis of the information before the Committee, it became apparent that the antiquated common law concepts and absence of statutory law creates problems and works to the detriment of both landlords and tenants who may very well be operating on different premises. It is the opinion of the Committee that there is a need to statutorily state the various obligations and other elements of tenancy so as to adequately express the modern da”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Blair v. Transam Trucking, Inc. · 11 Kan. App. 2d 478 - Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Wood

2. ““In examining the forfeiture provision, it is evident that the legislature regarded the security deposit as an important source for the protection of the landlord. This is pointed out in the defendants’ brief in the following language: ‘The security deposit serves the widely understood and accepted function of guaranteeing that the landlord will have a fund to draw upon in the event of a breach by the tenant causing actual damages by way of unpaid rent, waste, or some other breach. The availability of the fund is guaranteed by the landlord’s possession of it.’ As the defendants apparently recognize, the landlord’s retention of a security deposit until the tenants have vacated the leased premises is an important protection of the landlord’s investment — as an immediate compensation for damaged property and as an incentive for the tenant to leave the premises in the same condition as he found them. Any diminution in the value or amount of the security deposit increases the landlord’s risk while decreasing the tenant’s incentive to return the property in a good condition.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 25 Kan. App. 2d 162 - Heckard v. Martin · 17 Kan. App. 2d 560 - Burgess v. Stroud

3. ““In our examination of a challenged statute, we are obliged to presume that the statute is constitutional; it is the duty of the person attacking the statute to overcome that presumption. Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751 , 518 P.2d 362 (1974); Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm, 195 Kan. 748 , 408 P.2d 877 (1965). Our consideration of the constitutionality of the statute requires us to apply the ‘minimum rationality’ or ‘reasonable basis’ test. State ex rel. Schneider v. Liggett, 223 Kan. 610 , 576 P.2d 221 (1978); Henry v. Bauder; Tri-State Hotel Co. v. Londerholm. See also Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 , 25 L. Ed. 2d 491 , 90 S. Ct. 1153 , reh. denied 398 U.S. 914 (1970). Under that test, a statute is ‘rationally related’ to an objective if the statute produces effects that advance, rather than retard or have no bearing on, the attainment of the objective. So long as the regulation is positively related to a conceivable legitimate purpose, it passes scrutiny; it is for the legislature, not the courts, to balance the advantages and disadvantages.” 225 Kan. at 366 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duckworth v. City of Kansas City · State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City