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 1954–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Stovall v. Meneleygreen1 sentence2024For laches to apply, the court must consider the circumstances surrounding the delay and whether there was any disadvantage to the other party caused by that delay." Steele, 251 Kan. at 725 ; see Meneley, 271 Kan. at 389 ("In order to invoke the doctrine of laches, the moving party must show that it has been prejudiced or put at disadvantage by the delay."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Steele v. Guardianship & Conservatorship of Crist
green
2 sentences2024For laches to apply, the court must consider the circumstances surrounding the delay and whether there was any disadvantage to the other party caused by that delay." Steele, 251 Kan. at 725 ; see Meneley, 271 Kan. at 389 ("In order to invoke the doctrine of laches, the moving party must show that it has been prejudiced or put at disadvantage by the delay."). 2020For laches to apply, the court must consider the circumstances surrounding the delay and whether there was any 20 disadvantage to the other party caused by that delay. [Citation omitted.]" Steele v. Guardianship & Conservatorship of Crist, 251 Kan. 712, 725 , 840 P.2d 1107 (1992). | 4 | 2004–2024 |
Eddleman v. Askew
green
2 sentences1954The rule frequently applied by various courts was well stated quite early in Eddleman v. Askew, 50 Ga. App. 540 , 179 S. E. 247 , as follows: “His right of way and right to assume the absence of negligence by others do not entitle him to drive blindly or recklessly across an intersection, especially one which might be termed a ‘blind intersection,’ without regard to the conditions and consequences.” The authorities generally agree that although a person holding the prior right need not anticipate the other person will not obey the rule, or rules, of the road the one possessing the prior right 1954The rule frequently applied by various courts was well stated quite early in Eddleman v. Askew, 50 Ga. App. 540 , 179 S. E. 247 , as follows: “His right of way and right to assume the absence of negligence by others do not entitle him to drive blindly or recklessly across an intersection, especially one which might be termed a ‘blind intersection,’ without regard to the conditions and consequences.” The authorities generally agree that although a person holding the prior right need not anticipate the other person will not obey the rule, or rules, of the road the one possessing the prior right | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.