Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 80 KAN 504 - Leslie v. Gibson

Leslie v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
November 1988
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 1988

15 state decisions

60190919101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Ladd v. . Stevenson · Tyler v. Aspinwall · 7 E.H. Smith 309 - Furman v. . Furman · Albright v. Warkentin · Plummer v. Brown

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

  1. ““In commenting on the statute in question this court has said: ‘Indeed, in order to do justice to both parties, the provisions of that section should be construed in no technical way, but fairly and reasonably. Every party ought to have his day in court; and while service by publication, which in fact imparts no actual notice, must be sustained, yet a party thus served, and who has in fact no knowledge of the proceedings, ought to be granted a hearing if it can be possibly done consistent with the rights of other parties. The section provides ample protection to third parties dealing with property on the faith of the judgment, and the plaintiff certainly has no right to complain if within a reasonable time, which by statute is fixed at three years, the defendant demands an opportunity of litigating with him the justice of the claim. In fact, a judgment upon service by publication is as between the parties in the nature of a conditional judgment, one which becomes final and absolute only at the expiration of three years, and liable in the meantime to be opened whenever the defendant brings himself within the provisions of the section.’ (Albright v. Warkentin, 31 Kan. 442, 445 .) The manifest justice of allowing a person so situated an opportunity to be heard was thus referred to in Erving v. Windmill Co., 52 Kan. 787 : ‘We are at a loss to understand why the court refused to open the judgment and give the plaintiff in error an opportunity to set up his rights. The only service”
    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.