5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1968–1994 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 |
|---|---|---|
Broughton v. Pensacolagreen2 sentences1980See Flanigan v. Leavenworth Recreation Commission, 219 Kan. 710, 715 , 549 P.2d 1007 (1976), citing as the foundation case for that principle Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U.S. 266 , 23 L.Ed. 896 (1876). 1980See Flanigan v. Leavenworth Recreation Commission, 219 Kan. 710, 715 , 549 P.2d 1007 (1976), citing as the foundation case for that principle Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U.S. 266 , 23 L.Ed. 896 (1876). | 1 | 1 |
Flanigan v. Leavenworth Recreation Commissiongreen2 sentences1980See Flanigan v. Leavenworth Recreation Commission, 219 Kan. 710, 715 , 549 P.2d 1007 (1976), citing as the foundation case for that principle Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U.S. 266 , 23 L.Ed. 896 (1876). 1980See Flanigan v. Leavenworth Recreation Commission, 219 Kan. 710, 715 , 549 P.2d 1007 (1976), citing as the foundation case for that principle Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U.S. 266 , 23 L.Ed. 896 (1876). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burke v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence1994If, however, warnings to the trade, warnings apart from labels or packaging, limitation on sales to professionals, or other protections falling generally within the ambit of warnings should have been used when the content of the label was fixed by EPA there remains a liability question for the trier of fact. [Citation omitted.]” 797 F. Supp. at 1140 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bell v. A. D. Allison Drilling Co.
green
1 sentence1984In summary, Messenger’s death while traveling was causally connected with his employment (see Chapman v. Victory Sand & Stone Co., 197 Kan. 377 ); furthermore, the factual situation herein is very similar to that of Bell v. Allison Drilling Co., 175 Kan. 441 ; and as noted above, Newman v. Bennett, 212 Kan. 562 , dictates that questions such as that presented by the instant case must be decided by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Newman v. Bennett
green
1 sentence1984In summary, Messenger’s death while traveling was causally connected with his employment (see Chapman v. Victory Sand & Stone Co., 197 Kan. 377 ); furthermore, the factual situation herein is very similar to that of Bell v. Allison Drilling Co., 175 Kan. 441 ; and as noted above, Newman v. Bennett, 212 Kan. 562 , dictates that questions such as that presented by the instant case must be decided by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Chapman v. Victory Sand & Stone Co.
green
1 sentence1984In summary, Messenger’s death while traveling was causally connected with his employment (see Chapman v. Victory Sand & Stone Co., 197 Kan. 377 ); furthermore, the factual situation herein is very similar to that of Bell v. Allison Drilling Co., 175 Kan. 441 ; and as noted above, Newman v. Bennett, 212 Kan. 562 , dictates that questions such as that presented by the instant case must be decided by the trial court on a case-by-case basis. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
McCoy v. Wesley Hospital & Nurse Training School
green
2 sentences1971(See, McCoy v. Wesley Hospital & Nurse Training School, 188 Kan. 325 , 362 P. 2d 841 ; Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) The present case comes within the ambit of this rule. 1971(See, McCoy v. Wesley Hospital & Nurse Training School, 188 Kan. 325 , 362 P. 2d 841 ; Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) The present case comes within the ambit of this rule. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Price, Administrator v. Holmes
green
2 sentences1971(See, McCoy v. Wesley Hospital & Nurse Training School, 188 Kan. 325 , 362 P. 2d 841 ; Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) The present case comes within the ambit of this rule. 1971(See, McCoy v. Wesley Hospital & Nurse Training School, 188 Kan. 325 , 362 P. 2d 841 ; Price, Administrator v. Holmes, 198 Kan. 100 , 422 P. 2d 976 .) The present case comes within the ambit of this rule. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Milliken v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York
green
1 sentence1968In Milliken v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 338 F. 2d 35 , the federal court held that an insurer has the burden of proving facts which bring a case within the exclusionary clause of an insurance policy. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad v. Aetna Insurance
green
2 sentences1968Co., 180 Kan. 730 , 308 P. 2d 119 .)” (pp. 125, 126.) The construction of exclusionary clauses falls within the ambit of the rule. 1968Co., 180 Kan. 730 , 308 P. 2d 119 .)” (pp. 125, 126.) The construction of exclusionary clauses falls within the ambit of the rule. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.