Martindale v. Tenny’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 district · 218 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 232 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably 20 Kan. App. 2d 277 - Foulk v. Colonial Terrace (1994), City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, Ltd. Partnership (1993)
2 federal appellate · 12 district · 218 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 Jantz · 12 Kan. App. 2d 673 - Hutchinson National Bank & Trust Co. v. Brown · Director of Taxation v. Kansas Krude Oil Reclaiming Co. · Leiker Ex Rel. Leiker v. Gafford · Ingram v. Kumar
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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'the plaintiff intended from the outset to sue the correct defendant but through some error did not actually have the exact name of the defendant.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““K.S.A. 65-4905 contemplates there will be no formal court action once a screening panel has been requested and K.S.A. 65-4908 tolls any applicable statute of limitations until thirty (30) days after the screening panel has issued its written recommendations.’ Thus the act contemplates that no formal court action should be filed, or if an action has been filed that it be held in abeyance, until the parties have exhausted the screening panel procedure.” 250 Kan. at 630-31 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Roy v. Young
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.