5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1895–1989 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 |
|---|---|---|
Heinson v. Porter
green
1 sentence1989The language of Heinson appears to indicate that there can be no recovery on an assigned claim when the party from whom the claim was assigned has been released from liability and from the possibility of actual damages through a covenant not to execute or similar agreement. 244 Kan. at 675-77 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Kearns v. Michigan Iron & Coke Co.
green
2 sentences1960(Kearns v. Michigan Iron & Coke Co., 340 Mich. 577 , 66 N. W. 2d 230 .) By virtue of the foregoing Kansas decisions and the real party in interest statute, the assigned claim alleged in the petition, as amended, insofar as it appears from the face of the petition and the exhibits attached and made a part thereof, is legally assignable and suit may be brought by the assignee in its own name. 1960(Kearns v. Michigan Iron & Coke Co., 340 Mich. 577 , 66 N. W. 2d 230 .) By virtue of the foregoing Kansas decisions and the real party in interest statute, the assigned claim alleged in the petition, as amended, insofar as it appears from the face of the petition and the exhibits attached and made a part thereof, is legally assignable and suit may be brought by the assignee in its own name. | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Olmscheid v. Nelson-Tenney Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1909The effect of operating a ‘bolting saw’ with or without a carriage attachment, as to the safety of the operator, ,is not a matter of such common knowledge as to preclude the giving of expert testimony on the subject.” (Olmscheid v. Nelson-Tenney Lumber Co., 66 Minn. 61, 64 , 68 N. W. 605 .) (See, also,' 17 Cyc. 232, par. j,.notes 60 and 61; cases cited in 3 Wig. 1909The effect of operating a ‘bolting saw’ with or without a carriage attachment, as to the safety of the operator, ,is not a matter of such common knowledge as to preclude the giving of expert testimony on the subject.” (Olmscheid v. Nelson-Tenney Lumber Co., 66 Minn. 61, 64 , 68 N. W. 605 .) (See, also,' 17 Cyc. 232, par. j,.notes 60 and 61; cases cited in 3 Wig. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1904In the case of The State v. Wilson, 42 Kan. 587, 597 , 22 Pac. 622 , the course adopted by the district court to cure the irregularity in failing to arraign the defendant and to require him to plead was expressly recommended. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Parker v. Remington Sewing Machine Co.
neutral
2 sentences1895(Parker v. Sewing Machine Co., 24 Kas. 31 ; Snavely v. Buggy Co., 36 id. 106 ; Jones v. Kellogg, 51 id. 263.) A cause can only be determined in this court upon a transcript or a case-made. 1895(Parker v. Sewing Machine Co., 24 Kas. 31 ; Snavely v. Buggy Co., 36 id. 106 ; Jones v. Kellogg, 51 id. 263.) A cause can only be determined in this court upon a transcript or a case-made. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.