Davis v. Hughes’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably Kansas Racing Management, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Commission (1989), Halley v. Barnabe (2001)
2 federal appellate · 44 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 Sturdy v. Allied Mutual Insurance · Winner v. Ratzlaff · Van Hoozer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · Nitchals v. Williams · Forrester Ex Rel. Forrester v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The general rule of statutory construction is that a statute will operate prospectively unless its language clearly indicates that the legislature intended that it operate retrospectively. This rule is normally applied when an amendment to an existing statute or a new statute is enacted which creates a new liability not existing before under the law or which changes the substantive rights of the parties.’ " ‘The general rule of statutory construction is modified where the statutory change is merely procedural or remedial in nature and does not prejudicially affect die substantive rights of the parties.’ “ “While generally statutes will not be construed to give diem retrospective application unless it appears that such was die legislative intent, nevertheless when a change of law merely affects die remedy or law of procedure, all rights of action will be enforced under the new procedure without regard to whether or not die suit has been instituted, unless diere is a savings clause as to existing litigation.’ ” Davis v. Hughes, 229 Kan. 91, 101 , 622 P.2d 641 (1981) (quoting Nitchals v. Williams, 225 Kan. 285 , Syl. ¶ 1-3, 590 P.2d 582 [1991]).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) For injury sustained by the named insured and relatives residing in the same household while occupying another motor vehicle owned by the named insured and not insured under the policy, or for injury sustained by any person operating the insured motor vehicle without the expressed or implied consent of the insured.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * Whether the insurance company issued one or two policies of insurance logically should have no bearing on whether the uninsured motorist coverages can be stacked. * * *” Davis v. Hughes (1981), 229 Kan. 91, 98 , 622 P. 2d 641, 648 .”
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.