certainty rule in Kansas

1972“In Maston v. Maston, 171 Kan. 112 , 229 P. 2d 756 , a child custody case, with specific reference to the provisions of G.

1972“In Maston v. Maston, 171 Kan. 112 , 229 P. 2d 756 , a child custody case, with specific reference to the provisions of G.

1979(Peterson v. Bachar, [ 193 Kan. 161 , 392 P.2d 853 ].) “Strict application of the certainty doctrine would place a new business at a substantial disadvantage.

1979(Peterson v. Bachar, [ 193 Kan. 161 , 392 P.2d 853 ].) “Strict application of the certainty doctrine would place a new business at a substantial disadvantage.

1901In Stone v. Boone, 24 Kan. 337, 341 , Chief Justice Horton, speaking.for the' court, said : ‘ ‘ There seems to be running through the entire body of judicial decisions the doctrine that judges ought not to disturb prior rulings of the same court except for cogent reasons; as some express it, ‘only where the decision is flatly absurd or unjust,’ as the certainty of the rule is often more important than the reason of it.” s. stay of exeon^tion' It is claimed that, because the judge pro tem. ordered that execution be stayed on the judgment until the case-made was settled, he retained jurisdiction

1880The decision of Treadway v. Ryan, supra, was declared in 1866; it has stood unchallenged for nearly fifteen years; it has been copied and referred .to in various text-books as the law of this state; and in 1870 the legislature reenacted the section of the code of 1859 interpreted by that decision, (Laws 1870, ch. 87, §4;) therefore it is not improper to say the law-making power of the state adopted the judicial construction given to the statute by the supreme court in 1866.