Kyburz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 1997
13 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 Aetna Indemnity, Co. v. John Waters · Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Willis · Drainage District No. 5 or Lonoke County v. Kochtitzky · Seim v. Krause · Gammino v. Inhabitants of Dedham
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule appears to be well established that parties to a building or construction contract may designate an engineer or other person to determine questions related to its execution and that the parties are bound by his determination of matters within the scope of his authority and when made in good faith. McGuire v. City of Rapid City, 6 Dak. 346 , 43 N.W. 706 , 5 L.R.A. 752 ; Seim v. Krause, 13 S.D. 530 , 83 N.W. 583 ; Baker v. City Council of City of La Moure, 21 N.D. 140 , 129 N.W. 464 ; see also annotations in 54 A.L.R. 1255 , 110 A.L.R. 137 and 137 A.L.R. 530 . This, however, does not mean that the engineer may change the terms of the contract. Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. Willis, 38 Ariz. 33 , 297 P. 445 . In Tomlinson v. Ashland County, 170 Wis. 58 , 173 N.W. 300, 303 , the court had under consideration a building contract which gave an architect the power to make final decisions as to the true construction and meaning of the drawings ' and specifications. The court held that the contractors were not bound to furnish at their own expense as a part of their contract obligation the sand and labor for necessary inside and outside filling. The court said: ‘The power of the architects under the contract was unquestionably binding when deciding questions arising as to the meaning of . ■ the provisions of the plans and specifications concerning all work that was within the contract, but they were not given the power expressly, nor may we give it to them by implication, to”
4 later decisions 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.