Nelson v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Estate of Draper v. Bank of America, N.A. (2009), David v. Hett (2011)
2 federal appellate · 6 district · 35 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 Basic Inc. v. Levinson · Terry v. Terry · In re Sturm · Mortarino v. Consultant Engineering Services, Inc. · Moore v. State Bank of Burden
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“special statute of limitations governing ... claims against a decedent's estate ... operates as a complete bar to all demands against a decedent's estate that are not timely filed,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“‘[A] breach of a legal or equitable duty which, irrespective of moral guilt, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others or violate a confidence, and neither actual dishonesty [n]or purpose of intent to deceive is necessary.’ ” [Citation omitted.] Two additional elements must also be proven in order to establish constructive fraud: (1) a confidential relationship, and (2) a betrayal of this confidence or a breach of a duty imposed by the relationship. [Citation omitted.]’ Schuck v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 286 Kan. 19, 26 , 180 P.3d 571 (2008).””
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 die affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is enütíed 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 summaiy 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 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, summaiy judgment must be denied.’ [Citation omitted.]” Nelson v. Nelson, 288 Kan. 570, 578 , 205 P.3d 715 (2009).”
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.