Dean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In the realm of taxes, matters of assessment, exemption, equalization, and valuation are administrative in character. [Citation omitted.] Under Kansas law, it would be unwarranted for a court to entertain a tax suit on any of these matters of administrative expertise where administrative remedies had not been pursued." Dean v. State, 250 Kan. 417, 421 , 826 P.2d 1372 , cert. denied 504 U.S. 973 , 112 S.Ct. 2941 , 119 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barnes v. Board of County Commissioners · 23 Kan. App. 2d 624 - Sage v. Williams

2. ““K.S.A. 77-612 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: ‘A person may file a petition for judicial review under this act only after exhausting all administrative remedies available within the agency whose action is being challenged and within any other agency authorized to exercise administrative review.’ This court has stated the rule in less rigid terms: ‘The well-recognized rule in this state is that where a full and adequate administrative remedy is provided in tax matters by statute, such remedy must ordinarily be exhausted before a litigant may resort to the courts.’ (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Smith v. Miller, 239 Kan. 187 , Syl. ¶ 1, 718 P.2d 1298 (1986). “. . . The purpose to be served by requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies and the relative functions of the administrative agency and the judiciary were stated by this court in Jenkins v. Newman Memorial County Hospital, 212 Kan. 92, 95 , 510 P.2d 132 (1973): 'The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is directed toward promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular administrative and regulatory duties. It promotes orderly procedure and requires a party to exhaust the administrative sifting process with respect to matters peculiarly within the competence of the agency.’ In the realm of taxes, matters of assessment, exemption, equalization, and valuation are administrative in character. See Symns v. Graves, 65 Kan. 628, 636 , 70 Pac. 591 (”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 250 - In Re Application of Kinnet · Friedman v. KAN. STATE BD. OF HEALING ARTS

3. “"The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is well established in the jurisprudence of administrative law. A primary purpose of the doctrine is the avoidance of premature interruption of the administrative process. It is normally desirable to let the administrative agency develop the necessary factual background upon which its decisions are based. Since agency decisions are frequently of a discretionary nature, or frequently require expertise, the agency should be given the first chance to exercise that discretion or to apply that expertise. It is more efficient for the administrative process to go forward without interruption than it is to permit the parties to seek aid from the courts at various intermediate stages. The very same reasons lie behind judicial rules sharply limiting interlocutory appeals. Frequent and deliberate flouting of administrative processes could weaken the effectiveness of an agency by encouraging people to ignore its procedures. [Citations omitted.]"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Friedman v. Kansas State Board of Healing Arts · Friedman v. KAN. STATE BD. OF HEALING ARTS