Ebert v. Ebert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 8 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant first contends the holding and rationale of Stevens were erroneous and should be reconsidered. The public policy arguments advanced by defendant-husband were considered in Stevens and rejected. The argument is then made that any alteration in interspousal immunity is a matter reserved for legislative determination. We do not agree. The interspousal immunity doctrine was judicially created and, in Kansas, is not the subject of statutory law. It is therefore appropriate for this court to make alterations to said doctrine. E.g., Carroll v. Kittle, 203 Kan. 841 , 457 P.2d 21 (1969). See also Annot., Interspousal Tort Immunity, 92 A.L.R.3d 901 , § 18.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flagg v. Loy

2. “Judicial devotion to the doctrine of stare decisis is indeed a justifiable concept to be followed by our courts. However, it cannot and must not be so strictly pursued to the point where our view is opaqued and reality disregarded.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hall v. Dillon Companies, Inc.