Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 1930–1958 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Dines Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) This rule has been reiterated on numerous occasions and even as late as Morris v. Dines Mining Co., 174 Kan. 216, 221 , 256 P. 2d 129 , where the more recent cases are cited. 1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) This rule has been reiterated on numerous occasions and even as late as Morris v. Dines Mining Co., 174 Kan. 216, 221 , 256 P. 2d 129 , where the more recent cases are cited. | 3 | 1953–1958 |
Board of County Commissioners v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences1930(Civ. code, § 122.) This does not mean indefinite and uncertain according to the refinements and technicalities of the common-law system of pleading, and a pleading is sufficient as against the motion which fairly apprises the adversary of what the claim or defense is.” (Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , syl. ¶ 1, 150 Pac. 590 .) Appellant contends that it was error for the court to overrule his objection to the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff and his demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence for the reason that plaintiff, when he filed his plea of intervention in the attachment 1930(Civ. code, § 122.) This does not mean indefinite and uncertain according to the refinements and technicalities of the common-law system of pleading, and a pleading is sufficient as against the motion which fairly apprises the adversary of what the claim or defense is.” (Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , syl. ¶ 1, 150 Pac. 590 .) Appellant contends that it was error for the court to overrule his objection to the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff and his demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence for the reason that plaintiff, when he filed his plea of intervention in the attachment | 3 | 1930–1958 |
Gillen v. Stangle
neutral
2 sentences1958(Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , 150 Pac. 590 ; Morris v. Dines Mining Co., 174 Kan. 216, 221 , 256 P. 2d 129 ; Gillen v. Stangle, 175 Kan. 364 , 264 P. 2d 1079 .) Moreover, where the only purpose to make a petition definite and certain is to require plaintiff to plead his evidence, it should be overruled. 1958(Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , 150 Pac. 590 ; Morris v. Dines Mining Co., 174 Kan. 216, 221 , 256 P. 2d 129 ; Gillen v. Stangle, 175 Kan. 364 , 264 P. 2d 1079 .) Moreover, where the only purpose to make a petition definite and certain is to require plaintiff to plead his evidence, it should be overruled. | 2 | 1956–1958 |
McCroskey v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
neutral
2 sentences1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) *222 For other and more recent decisions recognizing and applying the principle announced in the foregoing decision see McCroskey v. Manufacturing Co., 112 Kan. 434, 435 , 211 Pac. 133 ; Allison v. Borer, 131 Kan. 699 , 293 Pac. 769 ; Hasty v. Bays, 145 Kan. 463, 465 , 66 P. 2d 265 ; Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. 1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) *222 For other and more recent decisions recognizing and applying the principle announced in the foregoing decision see McCroskey v. Manufacturing Co., 112 Kan. 434, 435 , 211 Pac. 133 ; Allison v. Borer, 131 Kan. 699 , 293 Pac. 769 ; Hasty v. Bays, 145 Kan. 463, 465 , 66 P. 2d 265 ; Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Allison v. Borer
green
2 sentences1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) *222 For other and more recent decisions recognizing and applying the principle announced in the foregoing decision see McCroskey v. Manufacturing Co., 112 Kan. 434, 435 , 211 Pac. 133 ; Allison v. Borer, 131 Kan. 699 , 293 Pac. 769 ; Hasty v. Bays, 145 Kan. 463, 465 , 66 P. 2d 265 ; Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. 1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) *222 For other and more recent decisions recognizing and applying the principle announced in the foregoing decision see McCroskey v. Manufacturing Co., 112 Kan. 434, 435 , 211 Pac. 133 ; Allison v. Borer, 131 Kan. 699 , 293 Pac. 769 ; Hasty v. Bays, 145 Kan. 463, 465 , 66 P. 2d 265 ; Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Hasty v. Bays
neutral
2 sentences1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) *222 For other and more recent decisions recognizing and applying the principle announced in the foregoing decision see McCroskey v. Manufacturing Co., 112 Kan. 434, 435 , 211 Pac. 133 ; Allison v. Borer, 131 Kan. 699 , 293 Pac. 769 ; Hasty v. Bays, 145 Kan. 463, 465 , 66 P. 2d 265 ; Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. 1953Now that pleadings are regarded according to their true purpose of fairly apprising the adversary of what the claim is to be, the function of the motion is much restricted. . . .” (p. 257.) *222 For other and more recent decisions recognizing and applying the principle announced in the foregoing decision see McCroskey v. Manufacturing Co., 112 Kan. 434, 435 , 211 Pac. 133 ; Allison v. Borer, 131 Kan. 699 , 293 Pac. 769 ; Hasty v. Bays, 145 Kan. 463, 465 , 66 P. 2d 265 ; Henderson v. National Mutual Cas. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Henderson v. National Mutual Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1953Co., 164 Kan. 109 , 187 P. 2d 508 ; Walton v. Noel Co., 167 Kan. 274, 276 , 205 P. 2d 928 . 1953Co., 164 Kan. 109 , 187 P. 2d 508 ; Walton v. Noel Co., 167 Kan. 274, 276 , 205 P. 2d 928 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Walton v. Noel Co.
green
2 sentences1953Co., 164 Kan. 109 , 187 P. 2d 508 ; Walton v. Noel Co., 167 Kan. 274, 276 , 205 P. 2d 928 . 1953Co., 164 Kan. 109 , 187 P. 2d 508 ; Walton v. Noel Co., 167 Kan. 274, 276 , 205 P. 2d 928 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Lawson v. Brokmann
neutral
2 sentences1930(Civ. code, § 122.) This does not mean indefinite and uncertain according to the refinements and technicalities of the common-law system of pleading, and a pleading is sufficient as against the motion which fairly apprises the adversary of what the claim or defense is.” (Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , syl. ¶ 1, 150 Pac. 590 .) Appellant contends that it was error for the court to overrule his objection to the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff and his demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence for the reason that plaintiff, when he filed his plea of intervention in the attachment 1930(Civ. code, § 122.) This does not mean indefinite and uncertain according to the refinements and technicalities of the common-law system of pleading, and a pleading is sufficient as against the motion which fairly apprises the adversary of what the claim or defense is.” (Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , syl. ¶ 1, 150 Pac. 590 .) Appellant contends that it was error for the court to overrule his objection to the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff and his demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence for the reason that plaintiff, when he filed his plea of intervention in the attachment | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Deerfield State Bank v. Coerber
green
2 sentences1930(Civ. code, § 122.) This does not mean indefinite and uncertain according to the refinements and technicalities of the common-law system of pleading, and a pleading is sufficient as against the motion which fairly apprises the adversary of what the claim or defense is.” (Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , syl. ¶ 1, 150 Pac. 590 .) Appellant contends that it was error for the court to overrule his objection to the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff and his demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence for the reason that plaintiff, when he filed his plea of intervention in the attachment 1930(Civ. code, § 122.) This does not mean indefinite and uncertain according to the refinements and technicalities of the common-law system of pleading, and a pleading is sufficient as against the motion which fairly apprises the adversary of what the claim or defense is.” (Republic County v. Guaranty Co., 96 Kan. 255 , syl. ¶ 1, 150 Pac. 590 .) Appellant contends that it was error for the court to overrule his objection to the introduction of evidence by the plaintiff and his demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence for the reason that plaintiff, when he filed his plea of intervention in the attachment | 1 | 1930–1930 |