Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 Kan. 652 - Halley v. Barnabe

Halley v. Barnabe’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

2 district · 56 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Unruh v. PURINA MILLS, LLC (2009), Nungesser v. Bryant (2007)

2 district · 56 state decisions

380200120102020decided

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 Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. · In Re the Marriage of Killman · Bergstrom v. Noah · Harding v. K.C. Wall Products, Inc. · In re Matney

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

  1. ““When a motion to dismiss under K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) raises an issue concerning the legal sufficiency of a claim, the question must be decided from the well-pleaded facts of plaintiffs petition. The motion in such case maybe treated as the modem equivalent of a demurrer. “Disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved or determined on a motion to dismiss for failure of the petition to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The question for determination is whether in the light most favorable to plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in plaintiff s favor, the petition states any valid claim for relief. Dismissal is justified only when the allegations of the petition clearly demonstrate plaintiff does not have a claim. “In considering a motion to dismiss for failure of the petition to state a claim for relief, a court must accept the plaintiff s description of that which occurred, along with any inferences reasonably be drawn therefrom. However, this does not mean the court is required to accept conclusory allegations on the legal effects of events the plaintiff has set out if these allegations do not reasonably follow from the description of what happened, or if these allegations are contradicted by the description itself.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The question for determination is whether in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and with every doubt resolved in plaintiff's favor, the petition states any valid claim for relief. Dismissal is justified only when the allegations of the petition clearly demonstrate plaintiff does not have a claim.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.