South v. McCarter’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
10 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Smith v. Kansas Gas Service Co. (2007), Sall Ex Rel. Sall v. T'S, Inc. (2006)
10 district · 33 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 United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California · Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc. · Nero v. Kansas State University · Schmeck v. City of Shawnee · In Re Cherokee County, Kansas Health Care Facility Revenue Bonds
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`"a common-sense perception of the risks involved in certain situations and includes whatever is likely enough to happen that a reasonably prudent person would take it into account. [Citation omitted.] An injury is foreseeable so as to give rise to a duty of care where a defendant knows or reasonably should know that an action or the failure to act will likely result in harm."' [Citation omitted.]" South v. McCarter, 280 Kan. 85, 103-04 , 119 P.3d 1 (2005).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The extent of the undertaking defines the scope of the duty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, 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. 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. 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 rules and where we find reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusions drawn from the evidence, summary judgment must be denied. [Citation omitted.]” Bracken v. Dixon Industries, Inc., 272 Kan. 1272, 1274-75 , 38 P.3d 679 (2002). “ In a negligence action, summary judgment is proper if the only questions presented are questions of law. To recover for negligence, tire plaintiff mustprove the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, injury, and a causal connection between the duty breached and the injury suffered. Whether a duty exists is a question of law. Whether the duty has been breached is a question of fact.’ ” Schmidt v. HTG, Inc., 265 Kan. 372, 396-97 , 961 P.2d 677 , cert. denied 525 U.S. 964 (1998) (quoting Honeycutt v. City of Wichit”
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.