Patterson v. Brouhard’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc. (1991), Catholic Diocese of Dodge City v. Raymer (1992)
124 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 Danes v. St. David's Episcopal Church · Hollingsworth v. Fehrs Equipment Co. · Gideon v. Bo-Mar Homes, Inc. · Mathis v. TG & Y · 9 Kan. App. 2d 248 - Cheek v. Hird
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.
““Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citations omitted.] When a summary judgment is challenged on appeal, an appellate court must read the record in the light most favorable to the party who defended against the motion for summary judgment. [Citations omitted.]” Patterson v. Brouhard, 246 Kan. 700, 702-03 , 792 P.2d 983 (1990).”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The legislature, by adopting K.S.A. 60-258a, imposed individual liability for damages based on the proportionate fault of all parties to the occurrence which gave rise to the injuries and damages even where one or more parties cannot be joined formally as a litigant or held legally responsible for his or her proportionate fault. It was also the intent of the legislature to. fully and finally litigate in a single action all causes of actions and claims for damages arising out of any act of negligence. It is the public policy of this state, that all parties are entitled to a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding. Neither the legislature nor this court ever intended to place form over substance and preclude an injured party from proceeding, against a tortfeasor when there had been no judicial determination of comparative fault. Mathis v. TG&Y, 242 Kan. 789, 751 , P.2d 136 (1988).” (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.