Bell v. Simon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the purpose and intent of the legislature governs when the intent can be ascertained from the statute. In construing statutes, the legislative intention is to be deter mined from a general consideration of the entire act. Effect must be given, if possible, to the entire act and every part thereof. To this end, it is the duty of the court, as far as practicable, to reconcile the different provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, and sensible.’ Harris Enterprises, Inc. v. Moore, 241 Kan. 59 , Syl. ¶ 1, 734 P.2d 1083 (1987). “ ‘In determining legislative intent, courts are not bound to an examination of the language alone but may properly look into the causes which impel the statute’s adoption, the objective sought to be attained, the statute’s historical background and the effect the statute may have under the various constructions suggested.’ In re Petition of City of Moran, 238 Kan. 513 , Syl. ¶ 2, 713 P.2d 451 (1986). “ ‘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). “ ‘Interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and it is the function of the court to interpret a statute to give it the effect intended by the legislature.’ Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co., 236 Kan. 450, 455 , 691 P.2”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Little Balkans Foundation, Inc. v. Kansas Racing Commission

2. ““K.S.A. 40-3403(c) must be read in harmony with the entire Act. While the legislature imposed more duties on the' nonresident provider, nothing indicates the legislature envisioned less protection in the form of coverage or Fund liability when basic coverage continued by operation of law. While it may be true that Dr. Bazzano owes the Fund a surcharge for the period from April 1, 1986, through July 1987, the basic coverage continued by operation of law during this period, and we hold the excess liability coverage of the Fund also continued. To hold otherwise, by a narrow isolated construction of K.S.A. 40-3403(c), would negate the public policy behind the Act as to patients of nonresident providers even though there had been substantial compliance with the act.” 246 Kan. at 484.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Todd v. Kelly

3. ““A policy of professional liability insurance approved by the commissioner and issued by an insurer duly authorized to transact business in this state in which the limit of the insurer’s liability is not less than $200,000 per claim, subject to not less than a $600,000 annual aggregate for all claims made during the policy period, shall be maintained in effect by each resident health care provider as a condition to rendering professional service as a health care provider in this state, unless such health care provider is a self-insurer. . . . Such policy shall provide as a minimum coverage for claims made during the term of the policy which were incurred during the term of such policy or during the prior term of a similar policy." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marshall v. Kansas Medical Mutual Insurance Co.