Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
2 district · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Mitzner Ex Rel. Bishop v. State, Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services (1995), Kerns Ex Rel. Kerns v. G.A.C., Inc. (1994)
2 district · 50 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 Bacon v. Mercy Hosp. of Ft. Scott · Simon v. National Farmers Organization, Inc. · Wisker Ex Rel. Wisker v. Hart · Millers' National Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Cross-Appellees v. The Wichita Flour Mills Company, and Cross-Appellant. The Wichita Flour Mills Company, and Cross-Appellant v. Millers' National Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Cross-Appellees · Casey v. Phillips Pipeline 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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In ruling on a motion for directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-250, the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought and, where reasonable minds could reach different conclusions based on the evidence, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. This ride must also be applied when appellate review is sought on a motion for directed verdict.” Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc., 253 Kan. 515, 524 , 856 P.2d 1313 (1993).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'has the affirmative duty to come forward with facts to support its claim, although it is not required to prove its case.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The burden on tire party seeking summaxy judgment is a strict one. The trial court is required to resolve all facts and inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought. Summary judgment is appropriate when 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. When opposing a motion for summary judgment, an adverse party must come forward with evidence to establish a dispute as to a material fact. In order to preclude summary judgment, the facts subject to the dispute must be material to the conclusive issues in the case. On appeal we apply the same rule, and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied. Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc., 253 Kan. 515, 519-20 , 856 P.2d 1313 (1993).” Kerns v. G.A.C., Inc., 255 Kan. 264, 268 , 875 P.2d 949 (1994).”
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.