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 2007–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Casco v. Armour Swift-Eckrichgreen2 sentences2009As for the scheduled versus nonscheduled injury issue, the Casco court overruled the parallel injury rule established in Honn v. Elliott, 132 Kan. 454 , 295 P. 719 (1931), which permitted a claimant to “receive compensation based on a permanent partial general disability rather than scheduled injuries if the claimant simultaneously injures parallel members.” Casco, 283 Kan. at 523, 527 . 2009In addressing the second issue, the Casco court overruled the parallel injury rule established in Honn v. Elliott, 132 Kan. 454 , 295 Pac. 719 (1931), which permitted a claimant to “receive compensation based on a permanent partial general disability rather than scheduled injuries if the claimant simultaneously injures parallel members.” Casco, 283 Kan. at 523, 527 . | 2 | 4 |
Pruter v. LAMED STATE HOSPITALgreen2 sentences2009The court then adopted the analytical model established in Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001), to calculate the claimant’s compensation when the claimant suffers a loss of both eyes, both hands, both arms, both feet, both legs, or any combination thereof. 2009The court then adopted the analytical model established in Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001), to calculate the claimant’s compensation when the claimant suffers a loss of both eyes, both hands, both arms, both feet, both legs, or any combination thereof. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Honn v. Elliott
red
2 sentences2010Analysis of this argument must therefore begin with an overview of the rules expressed in Casco, Graham, and their progeny. *390 In Casco , our Supreme Court overturned the long-standing parallel injury rule in workers compensation cases that was established in Honn v. Elliott, 132 Kan. 454 , 295 Pac. 719 (1931). 2010Analysis of this argument must therefore begin with an overview of the rules expressed in Casco, Graham, and their progeny. *390 In Casco , our Supreme Court overturned the long-standing parallel injury rule in workers compensation cases that was established in Honn v. Elliott, 132 Kan. 454 , 295 Pac. 719 (1931). | 5 | 2007–2010 |
Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co.
neutral
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co.
neutral
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rodriguez v. Henkle Drilling & Supply Co.
green
1 sentence2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hurst v. Independent Construction Co.
neutral
1 sentence2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Stanley v. United Iron Works Co.
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 2007See, e.g., Pruter v. Larned State Hospital, 271 Kan. 865, 875 , 26 P.3d 666 (2001) (calculating compensation for claimant’s simultaneous wrist and ankle injuries as scheduled injuries); Crouse v. Wallace Manufacturing Co., 207 Kan. 826 , 486 P.2d 1335 (1971) (refusing to apply Honn because the injuries did not occur at the same time); Wammack v. Root Manufacturing Co., 184 Kan. 367, 371-72 , 336 P.2d 441 (1959) (holding that injuries to both thumbs are scheduled injuries because thumbs do not appear on the list of parallel members); Stanley v. United Iron Works Co., 160 Kan. 243, 256-57 , 160 | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.