Emery v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 1986 · most notably Johnston Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1949), In Re Interest of LD (1986)
1 federal appellate · 32 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 Hamilton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Laithe v. McDonald · Howard v. Carter · Mitchell v. Milhoan · State v. Balliet
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The principal error assigned is in the admission of evidence, because the defendant’s answer was not verified as required by the new code. (Civ. Code, §110; Rose v. Boyer, 92 Kan. 892 , 141 Pac. 1006 ; Read v. Dodsworth, 95 Kan. 117 , 147 Pac. 799 .) This assignment would be good, but appellant filed a reply which joined issue on the pleaded defense. Evidence pro and con was received concerning it, and the appellant asked, and to some extent obtained, instructions covering the defense pleaded. Counsel for the appellant never did point out to the trial court frankly and specifically the defect in defendant’s answer, which was the want of verification. . . . We do not think that counsel are warranted in permitting even ‘an unfriendly court’ to commit error by overruling an objection which they fail to make sufficiently precise for the trial judge to understand and rule on intelligently. Can there be any doubt, if the objection had been timely and clearly made, that the court and opposing counsel would have seen it, and that leave would have been asked and granted to permit the answer to be verified?” (pp. 491, 492. See, also, Blair v. McQuary, 100 Kan. 203, 206 , 162 Pac. 1173 , 164 Pac. 262 .)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is said that the court was not justified in inquiring whether the judgment had been wrongfully obtained, because the reply of Kenyon was not verified, and for the further reason that it did not set forth the judgment sought to be vacated. The absence of a verification or the sufficiency of the pleadings was not brought to the attention of the district court, but the plaintiff proceeded to trial on the merits as though the reply was sufficient and the issues properly closed. Under these circumstances, the objection is raised too late, and a verification to the reply must be deemed to have been waived.” (p. 390.)”
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.