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 2 courts 1964–1992 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 |
|---|---|---|
George v. Ayesh
green
2 sentences1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 | 3 | 1964–1970 |
Graham v. Loper Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1992The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonable [sic] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Graham v. Loper Electric Co., 192 Kan. 558, 561-62 , 389 P.2d 750 (1964). 1992The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonable [sic] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Graham v. Loper Electric Co., 192 Kan. 558, 561-62 , 389 P.2d 750 (1964). | 2 | 1973–1992 |
Seymour v. Kelso
neutral
2 sentences1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 | 2 | 1964–1970 |
Thogmartin v. Koppel
neutral
2 sentences1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 | 2 | 1964–1970 |
Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
neutral
2 sentences1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 | 2 | 1964–1970 |
Gardner v. Koenig
green
2 sentences1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 1970The owner or occupant of premises is charged with the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep the premises in reasonabl[y] safe and suitable condition so as to avoid injury to an invitee or of warning an invitee of concealed perils of which the owner or occupant knows or should know by the exercise of reasonable diligence. ( Seymour v. Kelso, 136 Kan. 543 , 16 P.2d 958 ; Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347 , 65 P.2d 571 ; Glenn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 160 Kan. 488 , 163 P.2d 427 ; George v. Ayesh, 179 Kan. 324 , 295 P.2d 660 ; Gardner v. Koenig, 188 Kan. 135 , 360 P.2d 1107 .)" (pp. 561-56 | 2 | 1964–1970 |
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.