Hawkinson v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 district · 70 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A fiduciary relationship is a relationship of blood, business, friendship, or association in which one party places special trust or confidence in the other. It exists where there has been a special confidence placed in one who, in equity and good conscience, is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interest of the one placing the confidence. “The mere fact that an adult is interacting with a child, by itself, does not create a fiduciary relationship. Something more, in which special trust or confidence is placed in the fiduciary, is required. “A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for the benefit of the other person, who has placed his or her special confidence in the fiduciary. A fiduciary relationship implies a condition or superiority of one of the parties (the fiduciary) over the other. Generally, in a fiduciaiy relationship, the property, interest, or authority of the other person is placed in the charge of the fiduciaiy. In addition, as a general rule, a fiduciaiy relationship is established only when it is shown that the confidence placed by one person in another actually was accepted by that party; merely placing confidence in another does not, by itself, create a fiduciary relationship.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Hampton · State v. Gould

2. “"(a) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions or inferences as the judge finds: (1) Are rationally based on the perception of the witness ; (2) are helpful to a clearer understanding of the testimony of the witness; and (3) are not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of subsection (b). "(b) If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (1) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hubbard · Pullen v. West

3. “In Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap & Co., 255 Kan. 164, 169 , 872 P.2d 252 (1994), the court delineated the elements necessary to prove tortious interference with a contract as: “(1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer’s knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom.” .... In addition to the five elements, “[a]n action for tortious interference with a contract is predicated on malicious conduct by the defendant.” Dickens, 255 Kan. 164 , Syl. ¶ 1, 872 P.2d 252 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 45 F. Supp. 2d 1164 - Wichita Clinic, P.A. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.