declaration rule in Kansas

1989Although this court, in reversing the defendant’s conviction, did discuss the unavailability requirement, the court’s decision was actually based upon a finding that “[t]he indicia of reliability of the declaration against penal interest was sufficient to justify the admission of the declaration as an exception to the hearsay rule.” 226 Kan. at 318 .

1930The shortage might well have been due to inaccuracy in the scales or other innocent causes and yet the agent would be liable merely by a showing that the insurance company paid for the shortage under the terms of the policy and produced vouchers for such payment and settlement, if such provisions were held valid.” (p. 670.) In Hannon v. United Workmen, 99 Kan. 734 , 163 Pac. 169 , in discussing a by-law which attempted to abrogate the well-established rule of evidence relative to the unexplained disappearance of a person, and his absence for seven years, the court said: “If it were to be given

1923In the case of Love v. Blauw, 61 Kan. 496 , 59 Pac. 1059 , the court made the following declaration of principle: “To confer jurisdiction upon a court for the partition of an estate, it is indispensable that cotenancy exist between the parties.” (p. 502.) It is true that case was one for partition commenced by a life tenant against remaindermen, but the fundamental principle on which the decision was based reaches all cases in which the parties do not sustain the relation of cotenants.

1923In the case of Love v. Blauw, 61 Kan. 496 , 59 Pac. 1059 , the court made the following declaration of principle: “To confer jurisdiction upon a court for the partition of an estate, it is indispensable that cotenancy exist between the parties.” (p. 502.) It is true that case was one for partition commenced by a life tenant against remaindermen, but the fundamental principle on which the decision was based reaches all cases in which the parties do not sustain the relation of cotenants.

1919But for a declaration of the rule, in equity cases, see Railroad Commissioners v. Railway Co., 71 Kan. 193 , 80 Pac. 53 , and West v. Brugger, 103 Kan. 494, 499 , 175 Pac. 673 .

1919But for a declaration of the rule, in equity cases, see Railroad Commissioners v. Railway Co., 71 Kan. 193 , 80 Pac. 53 , and West v. Brugger, 103 Kan. 494, 499 , 175 Pac. 673 .

1919But for a declaration of the rule, in equity cases, see Railroad Commissioners v. Railway Co., 71 Kan. 193 , 80 Pac. 53 , and West v. Brugger, 103 Kan. 494, 499 , 175 Pac. 673 .

1919But for a declaration of the rule, in equity cases, see Railroad Commissioners v. Railway Co., 71 Kan. 193 , 80 Pac. 53 , and West v. Brugger, 103 Kan. 494, 499 , 175 Pac. 673 .

1917(Uhl v. Life Association, 97 Kan. 422 , 155 Pac. 926 .) If it were to be given effect in the trial of an action brought upon the beneficiary certificate previously issued to such a member, it would amount to a declaration of a rule of evidence to be applied by the court to the determination of a question of fact —a regulation of the amount and character of evidence by which such fact might be determined.

1917(Uhl v. Life Association, 97 Kan. 422 , 155 Pac. 926 .) If it were to be given effect in the trial of an action brought upon the beneficiary certificate previously issued to such a member, it would amount to a declaration of a rule of evidence to be applied by the court to the determination of a question of fact —a regulation of the amount and character of evidence by which such fact might be determined.