Mathis v. TG & Y’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Patterson v. Brouhard (1990), Anderson v. Scheffler (1988)
4 district · 27 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 Brown v. Keill · Albertson v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft · Eurich v. Alkire · Teepak, Inc. v. Learned · Mars v. McDougal
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fully and finally litigate in a single action all causes of actions and claims for damages arising out of any negligence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(a) The contributory negligence of any party in a civil action shall not bar such party or such party’s legal representative from recovering damages for negligence resulting in death, personal injury, property damage or economic loss, if such party’s negligence was less than the causal negligence of the party or parties against whom claim for recovery is made, but the award of damages to any party in such action shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to such party. If any such party is claiming damages for a decedent’s wrongful death, the negligence of the decedent, if any, shall be imputed to such party. “(b) Where the comparative negligence of the parties in any such action is an issue, the jury shall return special verdicts, or in the absence of a jury, the court shall make special findings, determining the percentage of negligence attributable to each of the parties, and determining the total amount of damages sustained by each of the claimants, and the entry of judgment shall be made by the court. No general verdict shall be returned by the jury. “(c) On motion of any party against whom a claim is asserted for negligence resulting in death, personal injury, property damage or economic loss, any other person whose causal negligence is claimed to have contributed to such death, personal injury, property damage or economic loss, shall be joined as an additional party to the action. “(d) Where the comparative negligence of the parties in an”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mick v. Mani““After an adjudication of comparative fault, no party should be afforded a second opportunity to litigate percentages of causal negligence. K.S.A. 60-258a certainly contemplates one action in which comparative fault is determined. However, it was never the intént of the legislature or this court to place form over substance and preclude a plaintiff from proceeding ■against a tortfeasor when there has been no judicial determination of comparative fault.” 242 Kan. at 794 . .”
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.