3 Kan. App. 2d 536 - Traylor v. Wachter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 14 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““According to the record, the pretrial conference was held on August 25, 1975. The pretrial conference order, approved by counsel for the parties and signed by the trial judge, was not filed until the first day of trial, nineteen months later. In that order, it was recited that plaintiff made two claims against the defendants. “The first claim was for compensatory damages for physical injury and property damage resulting from the automobile accident. On this first claim, plaintiff sought recovery from Wachter only. Plaintiff and Wachter each charged the other with certain violations of rules of the road. “The second claim was sort of a mixed bag claim in that a mingling of negligence, malice, fraud and outrage was alleged. This second claim was stated as follows: “ ‘The plaintiff charges the defendants Wachter and Emcasco Insurance Company with the following negligent, malicious, fraudulent and outrageous actions by and through their agents and/or employees: “ ‘A. Forgery of plaintiff’s signature to a release by defendants’ agents; “ ‘B. Reliance upon forged release; “ ‘C. Failure to make a good faith investigation of plaintiff’s allegations of forgery prior to suit; “ ‘D. Fraud in lack of explanation of effect of Agreement and Release document which defendant Emcasco’s employee and defendant Wachter’s agent knew contained elements and consequences not orally explained to claimants with the further expectation that claimants would rely on said explanations of defendants’ empl”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Traylor v. Wachter

2. ““Wachter first contends the trial court erred in denying his post-trial motion to amend, the recognized purpose of which was to correct the written verdicts to reflect what is claimed to have been the true verdicts of the jury. Wachter does not attack the actual damages verdict against him on plaintiff’s first claim. Although within its other arguments the insurer attacks that verdict obliquely, Wachter’s individual interests were separately represented by personal counsel at trial. Under the circumstances of this case, the insurer has no standing to challenge that verdict. “The events of post-trial contacts and communications between the jury and the court, counsel for Wachter, counsel for the insurer, and a representative of the insurer need not be detailed. In support of his motion to amend, Wachter presented the affidavits of nine of the jurors and the live testimony of the other three jurors. The twelve jurors unanimously stated that their true verdicts were that plaintiff recover $55,000 actual damages against Wachter on her first claim, plaintiff recover no damages against Wachter on her second claim, plaintiff recover $50,000 actual damages against the insurer on her second claim, and plaintiff recover $100,000 punitive damages against the insurer on her second claim. The jurors agreed their verdicts were mistakenly recorded on the verdicts form. “As the motion to amend was brought before and presented to the court, it was in the nature of a request by a party, Wachte”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Traylor v. Wachter

3. “(a) Within fifteen (15) days of the date of the occurrence causing injury to any person, who either is under the care of a person licensed to practice the healing arts, or is confined to a hospital or sanitarium as a patient, no person whose interest is or may become adverse to the injured person shall: (1) Negotiate or attempt to negotiate a settlement with the injured patient; or (2) obtain or attempt to obtain a general release of liability from the injured patient. (b) Any settlement agreement entered into, any general release , of liability or any written statement made by any person who is under the care of a person licensed to practice the healing arts or is confined in a hospital or sanitarium after he or she incurs a personal injury, which is not obtained in accordance with the provisions of K.S.A. 60-2802, may be disavowed by the injured person within fifteen (15) days after discharge from the care of any person licensed to practice the healing arts or after release from the hospital or sanitarium, whichever occurs first, and such statement, release or settlement shall not be received in evidence in any court action relating to the injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 659 F. Supp. 412 - Rickman v. Cone Mills Corp.