Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 KAN 518 - Pickens v. Campbell

Pickens v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1916

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
May 1977
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently May 1977

2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions

401916192019301940195019601970decided

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 Hardt v. Heidweyer · Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Township · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Atchison Grain Co. · Klemp v. Winter · Chick v. Willetts

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.

  1. ““Ordinarily the right to the purchase price of land, contracted to be sold but not conveyed at the time of the Vendor’s death, passes to his personal representative- and not to his heirs. (Gilmore v. Gilmore, 60 Kan. 606 , 57 Pac. 505 ; 18 Cyc. 187; 11 R. C. L. 124; Note, 57 L. R. A. 646.), The petition contains nothing to suggest a different rule here, but if the' evidence should show that the administrator believed that the notes therein referred to followed the rule .of real estate and became the property of the widow, no statements made by him in good faith by reason of that- belief, however incorrect from a legal point of view, would warrant a reopening of the administration.” (p. 522.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The mere fraudulent concealment of facts giving rise to a right of action for damages for the violation of a contract has been held by this court not to suspend the statute. (Railway Co. v. Grain Co., 68 Kan. 585 , 75 Pac. 1051 .)” (Pickens v. Campbell, 98 Kan. 518, 522 , 159 Pac. 21 .)”
    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.