Hoffman v. Haug’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably State v. Hall (1990), In Re Marriage of Ross (1989)
91 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 K-B Trucking Company v. Riss International Corporation · Denison State Bank v. Madeira · 6 Kan. App. 2d 346 - Unified School District No. 490 v. Celotex Corp. · Barnhart v. McKinney · Waggener v. Seever Systems, Inc.
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The test on appellate review of whether the trial court abused its discretion is whether no reasonable person would agree with the trial court. If any reasonable person would agree, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's decision. Hoffman v. Haug, 242 Kan. 867, 873 , 752 P.2d 124 (1988)." 245 Kan. at 598 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) No supplier shall engage in any deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction. “(b) Deceptive acts and practices include, but are not limited to, the following, each of which is hereby declared to be a violation of this act: (1) Representations made knowingly or with reason to know that: (A) Property or services have sponsorship, approval, accessories, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not have; (D) property or services are of particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are of another which differs materially from the representation; oi- iS) the intentional use, in any oral or written representation, of exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact. (3) the intentional failure to state a material fact, or the intentional concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact, whether or not any person has in fact been misled.” (Emphasis added.)”
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.