Roy v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 60 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Martindale v. Tenny · State v. Maass · Williamson v. City of Hays · State v. Manbeck · McCullough v. Bethany Medical Center
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““With regard to the interplay of K.S.A. 65-4905 and K.S.A. 65-4908, the court stated in Martindale : ‘K.S.A. 65-4905 contemplates there will be no formal court action once a screening panel has been requested and K.S.A. 65-4908 tolls any applicable statute of limitations “until thirty (30) days after the screening panel has issued its written recommendations.” Thus the act contemplates that no formal court action should be filed, or if an action has been filed that it be held in abeyance, until the parties have exhausted the screening panel procedure.’ 250 Kan. at 630-31 .” Roy, 278 Kan. at 250-51 (upholding this statement in Martindale even though it was dicta).”
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.