Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 KAN 209 - Lawrence v. Wheeler

Lawrence v. Wheeler’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
May 1954
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1954

7 state decisions

20190819101920193019401950decided

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 Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer · Ladd v. Nystol · Buckland v. Goit · Baker v. Long · Park v. Tinkham

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

  1. ““At the time that this contest was dismissed it was too late for the contestar to commence a new contest, and hence, if this dismissal were to be sustained, it would be a final determination of the case, and a final determination upon a pure technicality. This the law never encourages, and especially not where cases are to be tried before inferior tribunals, not skilled in the law. It is a dangerous thing for an inferior tribunal, not skilled in the law, to attempt to decide cases upon pure legal technicalities. Superior courts seldom attempt any such thing. And the law always encourages trials upon the merits, and never encourages final determinations upon mere technicalities of any kind.” (p. 330.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““This court has held that pleadings in the nature of an answer and reply are proper in contest cases, and if filed they should be construed according to the ordinary rules applicable to such pleadings. (Baker v. Long, 17 Kan. 341 .) It has also been decided that the contest should be heard and adjudicated upon the merits and not disposed of upon technicalities. (Buckland v. Goit, 23 Kan. 327 .)””
    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.