Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 KAN 39 - Tompkins v. Bise

Tompkins v. Bise’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

6 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Rockers v. Kansas Turnpike Authority (1999), Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. Oneok, Inc. (2006)

6 district · 18 state decisions

180199620002010decided

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 Todd v. Kelly · State v. Donlay · Martindale v. Tenny · Samsel v. Wheeler Transport Services, Inc. · City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, Ltd. Partnership

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

  1. “It is elementary that if the meaning of a statute is plain, the sole function of the court is to enforce it according to its terms. Where a statute may be of doubtful meaning and is susceptible to two constructions, the court may look at the legislative history of the statute to assist in determining the meaning of the statute. If the legislative history does not assist the court as to which of the two constructions is correct, the court must select the reasonable construction so as to avoid unreasonable or absurd results. If the legislature disagrees with the court’s interpretation of the statute, the legislature has the power to set aside the court’s interpretation by amending the statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In any medical malpractice liability action, as defined in K.S.A. 60-3401 and amendments thereto, in which the standard of care given by a practitioner of the healing arts is at issue, no person shall qualify as an expert witness on such issue unless at least 50% of such person’s professional time within the two-year period preceding the incident giving rise to the action is devoted to actual clinical practice in the same profession in which the defendant is licensed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The statute was not intended to require that only a surgeon could testify as to the standard of care of another surgeon, etc. The weight afforded the testimony of physicians testifying outside their area of professional specialization is a matter to be determined by the jury.”
    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.