Lytle v. Stearns’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
6 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably State v. Smith (1999), Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrich (2007)
6 district · 94 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 Brown v. Keill · Dreier v. Upjohn Co. · Mason v. Texaco, Inc. · Ratterree v. Bartlett · Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co.
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a setdement agreement is entered into between die plaintiff and one or more, but not all, alleged defendant tortfeasors, the parties entering into such agreement shall prompdy inform the court in which the action is pending and die other parties to the action of die existence of die agreement and its terms. If the action is tried to a jury and a defendant who is a party to the agreement is a witness, the court shall, upon motion of a party, disclose the existence and content of the agreement to die jury unless the court finds in its discretion such disclosure to the jury will create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury.” 238 Kan. at 29.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'alternative and 23 hypothetical forms of statement of claims and defenses, regardless of consistency . . . lack the essential character of an admission.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Evidence that a person has, in compromise or from humanitarian motives furnished or offered or promised to furnish money, or any other thing, act or service to another who has sustained or claims to have sustained loss or damage, is inadmissible to prove his or her liability for the loss or damage of any part of it.””
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.