Szoboszlay v. Glessner’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Harding v. K.C. Wall Products, Inc. (1992), Kerns Ex Rel. Kerns v. G.A.C., Inc. (1994)
4 federal appellate · 4 district · 113 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 33 Cal. 2d 116 - Sjoberg v. Hastorf · Equity Investors, Inc. v. Academy Insurance Group, Inc. · Food Pantry, Ltd. v. Waikiki Business Plaza, Inc. · State v. Moses · 25 Cal. 2d 375 - Nicholson v. Henderson
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'a prevailing party is the person who has an affirmative judgment rendered in his favor at the conclusion of the entire case.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is a cardinal rule of law that statutes complete in themselves, relating to a specific thing, take precedence over general statutes or over other statutes which deal only incidentally with the same question or which might be construed to relate to it. Where there is a conflict between a statute dealing generally with a subject, and another dealing specifically with a certain phase of it, the specific legislation controls." Szoboszlay v. Glessner, 233 Kan. 475, 479 , 664 P.2d 1327 (1983).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[W]e are mindful of the fundamental rule of statutory construction, to which all others are subordinate, that the purpose and intent of the legislature governs when that intent can be ascertained from the statute. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Dickerson, 220 Kan. 627, 630 , 629 P.2d 187 (1981); In re Adoption of Trent, 229 Kan. 224, 228 , 624 P.2d 433 (1981). The historical background and changes made in a statute are to be considered by the court in determining the legislative intent, and any changes and additions made in existing legislation raise a presumption that a change in meaning and effect was intended. Moore v. City of Lawrence, 232 Kan. 353 , Syl. ¶ 6, 654 P.2d 445 (1982). In order to ascertain the legislative intent, courts are not permitted to consider only an isolated part or parts of an act but are required to consider and construe together all parts thereof in pari materia. Board of Education of U.S.D. 512 v. Vic Regnier Builders, Inc. 231 Kan. 731, 736 , 648 P.2d 1143 (1982). When a statute is plain and unambiguous the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. Randall v. Seemann, 228 Kan. 395 , Syl. ¶ 1, 613 P.2d 1376 (1980); Lakeview Gardens, Inc. v. State, ex rel. Schneider, 221 Kan. 211 , Syl. ¶ 2, 557 P.2d 1286 (1976).””
2 later decisions 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.