4 Kan. App. 2d 596 - Bray v. Bayles’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
4 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2008
4 district · 10 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 In Re the Attorney General, Stephan · Davis v. Hill Engineering, Inc. · Brown v. Wichita State University · Brown v. Wichita State University · Highland Lumber Co., Inc. v. Knudson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The phrase “an agent authorized by appointment to receive service of process” is intended to cover the situation where an individual actually appoints an agent for that purpose. Where actual appointment to accept service is not shown, the service is invalid_ ... [T]he mere appointment of an agent, even with broad authority, is not enough; it must be shown that the agent had specific authority, express or implied, for the receipt of service of process. ... The agent’s acceptance of service, or his own statement as to his authority, is insufficient, standing alone, to establish authorization to receive process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Beam v. Adams
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.