4 Kan. App. 2d 13 - Burke v. Schroth’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2004
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 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 Winner v. Ratzlaff · Van Hoozer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · 45 Wis. 2d 60 - Sahloff v. Western Casualty & Surety Co. · 151 Ind. App. 99 - American States Insurance Company v. Williams · 138 N.J. Super. 287 - Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Dierolf
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under K.S.A. 60-241(a)(2) . . . the power to dismiss an action at the plaintiffs instance upon terms and conditions imposed by the district court, although judicial, is discretionary in nature.” Syl. ¶ 2. “[I]n exercising judicial discretion for dismissal of an action at the instance of the plaintiff after the defendant’s answer is filed, the district court should follow the traditional principle that dismissal will be allowed unless the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit. It is no bar to dismissal that the plaintiff may obtain some tactical advantage by such dismissal, or that the defendant may lose the defense of a period of limitation.” Syl. ¶ 3. “The terms and conditions which the district cour't may impose upon dismissal of an action at the instance of the plaintiff are for the protection of the substantive rights of the defendant, but a refusal to consider any equities of the plaintiff is a denial of a full and complete exercise of judicial discretion. The district court should weigh all the equities of the case and consider the rights of the parties and how they will be affected, and what benefits or injuries may result to the respective sides in the controversy if a dismissal is granted.” Syl. ¶ 4. “Upon appellate review by the supreme court, the inquiry whether the district court abused its judicial discretion in denying a plaintiff s motion to dismiss his action without prejudice after defendant’s answe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the right of subrogation is lost if the tort statute of limitations has run against the insured under the theory that the right of subrogation is purely derivative as the insurer succeeds only to the rights of the insured.”
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.