In re Johns, 304 P.3d 677 (Kan. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Johns, 304 P.3d 677 (Kan. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the fair market value of inventory is the price that a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree upon in an arm's length-transaction.”
44 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ringneck Farms v. Steuwe (kanctapp, 2020-09-04)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Ringneck Farms v. Steuwe
Kan. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the fair market value of inventory is the price that a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree upon in an arm's length-transaction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gulick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
D. Kan. · 2025 · confidence medium
State Farm first argues that Merritt’s opinion contradicts the Kansas Supreme Court’s definition of fair market value, which is “the price that a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree upon in an arm’s length-transaction.” Doc. 68 at 15 (quoting State v. Hall, 304 P.3d 677, 681 (Kan. 2013)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Morris v. State (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Alaska Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Larceny § 81 (2014). 9 See, e.g., Doyle v. Doyle, 815 P.2d 366 , 370 n.6 (Alaska 1991); Jones v. State, 1984 WL 908613 , at *6 (Alaska App. Aug. 29, 1984) (unpublished). 10 See, e.g., State v. Hall, 304 P.3d 677, 681 (Kan. 2013); People v. Irrizari, 156 N.E.2d 69, 71 (N.Y. 1959); State v. Downing, 654 N.W.2d 793, 798 (S.D. 2002); Com. v. Hanes, 522 A.2d 622, 625 (Pa. Super. 1987); People v. Johnson, 348 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Mich. App. 1984). 6 2429 AS 11.46.980(a).11 And Morris himself requested that the trial court instruct the jury with this definition (although the court denied his request).
discussed Cited "see" Drouhard v. City of Argonia
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hall, 297 Kan. 709, 713 , 304 P.3d 677 (2013) ('The fair market value of inventory is the price that a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree upon in an arm's length- transaction.')." Ringneck Farms LLC v. Steuwe, No. 121,879, 2020 WL 5268234 , at *12 (Kan.
discussed Cited "see" Drouhard v. City of Argonia
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hall, 297 Kan. 709, 713 , 304 P.3d 677 (2013) ('The fair market value of inventory is the price that a willing seller and a willing buyer would agree upon in an arm's length- transaction.')." Ringneck Farms LLC v. Steuwe, No. 121,879, 2020 WL 5268234 , at *12 (Kan.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Davis
Kan. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hall, 297 Kan. 709 , Syl. ¶ 1, 304 P.3d 677 (2013) (holding that there is no bright-line rule favoring either retail or wholesale value in ordering restitution); State v. Hand, 297 Kan. 734 , 304 P.3d 1234 (2013) (holding that district judge has discretion to base restitution award on increased insurance premium rather than fair-market value of stolen property).
cited Cited "see" State v. Alderson
Kan. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hall, 297 Kan. 709, 715 , 304 P.3d 677 (2013); Schoenholz v. Hinzman, 295 Kan. 786, 797 , 289 P.3d 1155 (2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Jeffrey M. Johns
No. 104,570.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Jun 24, 2013.
304 P.3d 677
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 61%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Kansas (1)

On December 23, 2010, this court suspended the respondent, Jeffrey M. Johns, from the practice of law in Kansas for a period of 2 years. See In re Johns, 291 Kan. 638, 243 P.3d 1101 (2010). Before reinstatement, the respondent was required to pay the costs of the disciplinary action, present a professional evaluation, and comply with Supreme Court Rule 218 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 397), as amended December 1, 2012, and comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 398), as amended December 1, 2012.

On January 25, 2013, the respondent filed a petition with this court for reinstatement to the practice of law in Kansas. The petition was referred to the Disciplinary Administrator for consideration by the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 219. The Disciplinary Administrator affirmed that the respondent met all requirements set forth by the court.

The court, after carefully considering the record, accepts the findings and recommendations that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in Kansas.

It Is Therefore Ordered that the respondent be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Kansas conditioned upon his compliance with the annual continuing legal education requirements and upon his payment of all fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission. When the respondent has complied with the annual continuing legal education requirements and has paid the fees required by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts and the Kansas Continuing Legal Education Commission, the Clerk is directed to enter respondent’s name upon the roster of attorneys engaged in the practice of law in Kansas.

It Is Further Ordered that this order of reinstatement of Jeffrey M. Johns shall be published in the official Kansas Reports,[*708] and the costs of the reinstatement proceedings are assessed to the respondent.

Dated this 24th day of June, 2013.