8 Kan. App. 2d 288 - Johnson v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 10 state decisions

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

1. “If when a cause of action accrues against a person he or she be out of the state, or has absconded or concealed himself or herself, the period limited for the commencement of the action shall not begin to run until such person comes into the state, or while he or she is so absconded or concealed, and if after the cause of action accrues he or she depart from the state, or abscond or conceal himself or herself, the time of the absence or concealment shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought. This section shall not apply to extend the period of limitation as to any defendant whose whereabouts are known and upon whom service of summons can be effected under the provisions of article 3 of this chapter.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 291 F. Supp. 2d 1194 - Moore v. Luther Ex Rel. Luther

2. ““Suppose a merchant in the east absconds from his residence and comes to the city of Topeka, there engages in the same line of business under his own name, lives as open and public a life as other citizens of Topeka: can it be said that the manner of his departure from the east, and the failure of his creditors after reasonable efforts to discover his residence in Topeka, prove that he conceals himself, within the meaning of that section? We think not. We think the word ‘conceal’ contemplates some action here; that he passes under an assumed name, has changed his occupation, or acts in a manner which tends to prevent the community in which he lives from knowing who he is or whence he came.” 30 Kan. at 183 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 37 Kan. App. 2d 870 - Underhill v. Thompson

3. ““This statute was recently discussed in Gideon v. Gates, 5 Kan. App. 2d 23 , 611 P.2d 166 , rev. denied 228 Kan. 806 (1980). The court held that the word ‘known’ as used in the statute means an address or place where service of process upon the defendant can be effected that is known or should have been known to plaintiff by the exercise of due diligence. (See also Gard’s Kansas C. Civ. Proc. 2d Annot. § 60-517 [1979].) “Thus the issues here are: (1) Whether the plaintiff, in the exercise of due diligence, knew or should have known of defendant’s whereabouts, and (2) whether defendant concealed himself.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 Kan. App. 2d 625 - Slayden v. Sixta