5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Great Bend Cooperative Ass'ngreen1 sentence2025See Young v. Great Bend Cooperative Assn., 50 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Corbett
green
1 sentence2025Corbett, 281 Kan. at 304-05 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Stayton v. Stayton
green
2 sentences1984Stayton v. Stayton, 211 Kan. 560, 562 , 506 P.2d 1172 (1973)." The statute today remains substantially as it has been for many years, the only notable exception being the deletion of "fault" from the items which the trial court must consider, and appellant does not contend that that item was considered here. 1984Stayton v. Stayton, 211 Kan. 560, 562 , 506 P.2d 1172 (1973)." The statute today remains substantially as it has been for many years, the only notable exception being the deletion of "fault" from the items which the trial court must consider, and appellant does not contend that that item was considered here. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Sigler v. Sigler
neutral
2 sentences1934J.: “A composition with creditors is a notable exception to the general rule, inasmuch as each creditor undertakes to accept a sum less than is due to him in satisfaction of a greater, and such agreements are binding.” Our own court, in the case of Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan. 524 , 158 Pac. 864 , held that a payment by a debtor in composition with his creditors generally by which they agree to accept less than is due them, is held to create a consideration which is sufficient, explaining the earlier holdings of this and other courts on that and similar propositions, as follows in the first sylla 1934J.: “A composition with creditors is a notable exception to the general rule, inasmuch as each creditor undertakes to accept a sum less than is due to him in satisfaction of a greater, and such agreements are binding.” Our own court, in the case of Sigler v. Sigler, 98 Kan. 524 , 158 Pac. 864 , held that a payment by a debtor in composition with his creditors generally by which they agree to accept less than is due them, is held to create a consideration which is sufficient, explaining the earlier holdings of this and other courts on that and similar propositions, as follows in the first sylla | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Bauserman v. Blunt
green
2 sentences1903In Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 657 , 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 470, 37 L. 1903In Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 657 , 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 470, 37 L. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.