How cited: Westar Energy, Inc. v. Wittig · Go Syfert

Westar Energy, Inc. v. Wittig (2010)

green · 51 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 6 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201020182026
Quote Authority · D. Kan. · 5 citations in this opinion
Id. (“Even so, we note the court in Western States makes clear that the district court should not ‘simply award the full amount billed’ but clearly had discretion to adjust a contractual award of fees if an award is inequitable or unreasonable.”).
“Even so, we note the court in Western States makes clear that the district court should not ‘simply award the full amount billed’ but clearly had discretion to adjust a contractual award of fees if an award is inequitable or unreasonable.”
Rule Authority · Kan. Ct. App.
App. 2d 182, 206 , 235 P.3d 515, 530 (2010) (citing Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., 281 Kan. 930, 940-41 , 135 P.3d 1127 [2006]).
citing Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., 281 Kan. 930, 940-41 , 135 P.3d 1127 [2006]
Rule Authority · Kan. Ct. App.
App. 2d 182, 206 , 235 P.3d 515, 530 (2010) (citing Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., 281 Kan. 930, 940-41 , 135 P.3d 1127 [2006]).
citing Johnson v. Westhoff Sand Co., 281 Kan. 930, 940-41 , 135 P.3d 1127 [2006]
Cited (see also) · D. Or. · signal: see also · 2 citations in this opinion
For example, in Kaung v. Cole Nat’l Corp., the Delaware Supreme Court held that “an advancement proceeding is summary in nature and not appropriate for litigating indemnification or recoupment.” 884 A.2d 500, 510 (Del.2005); see also Westar Energy, Inc. v. Wittig, 44 Kan.App.2d 182, 235 P.3d 515, 525-26 (2010) (reasoning that “advancement is meant to alleviate an officer from personally providing the enormous resources required to litigate against corporate charges. ...
Cited · Kan. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Westar Energy, Inc. v. Wittig , 44 Kan.
Cited (see also) · Kan. · signal: see also
Co., 276 Kan. 97, 111 , 73 P.3d 120 (2003) (court will not strain to find ambiguity where in common sense, there is none); Investcorp, 267 Kan. at 848 ; see also Westar Energy, Inc. v. Wittig, 44 Kan.
if contract, read as a whole, is unambiguous, court will not consider conduct of parties