Read v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Pieren-Abbott v. Kansas Department of Revenue (2005), Slayden v. Sixta (1992)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 39 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 In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · In re Jantz · Kansas State Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services v. Goertzen · Szoboszlay v. Glessner · State v. Graves
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A civil action is commenced at the time of: (1) Filing a petition with the clerk of the court, if service of process is obtained . . . within 90 days after the petition is filed, except that the court may extend that time an additional 30 days upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff; or (2) service of process ... if service of process ... is not made within the time specified by provision (1).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Based on the plain, unambiguous language of K.S.A. 60-203(a), and considering existing case law rules and the lack of any legislative intent to the contrary, we hold that an extension of time under K.S.A. 60-203(a) must be sought and granted before the expiration of the 90-day period. ” (Emphasis added.) Read v. Miller, 247 Kan. 557, 564, 802 P.2d 528 (1990).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If service of process or first publication purports to have been made but is later adjudicated to have been invalid due to any irregularity in form or procedure or any defect in making service, the action shall nevertheless be deemed to have been commenced at the applicable time under subsection (a) if valid service is obtained or first publication is made within 90 days after that adjudication, except that the court may extend that time an additional 30 days upon a showing of good cause by the plaintiff.””
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.