Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 42 KAN 600 - King v. Sutton

King v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis

1889

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
July 1951
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 1951

6 state decisions

2018891890190019101920193019401950decided

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 National Bank of the Commonwealth v. Mechanics' National Bank · Mortley v. Flanagan · National Bank of Newburgh v. . Bigler · Hersey v. Bennett · Jones v. Williams

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “‘ ‘ While the firm is in existence its property may be sold by either partner, and will be followed by no claim, in law or equity, by the creditors of the firm if sold to the purchaser in good faith. ■. . . The law does not provide that partnership debts may be first enforced against the joint property of the firm in preference to the individual debts of the partner, on the ground of any equity held by the creditors, but this relief is granted to tfie creditor on account of the equities of the partners, each one of them having the right to demand that the firm property shall be devoted to the payment, of the firm debt, and shall be first exhausted before the individual estates are taken.” (King v. Sutton, 42 Kan. 600 .) See, also, City of Maquoketa v. Willey, 35 Iowa, 323 .”
    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.