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 1927–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jepson v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen1 sentence2016State v. Goodwin, 223 Kan. 257, 259 , 573 P.2d 10 999 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mantongreen1 sentence1977(State v. Joseph Little, 201 Kan. 101, 104 , 439 P.2d 383 .) It was said in United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834, 845 [2d Cir. 1939], long before the advent of our present evidentiary code: “. . . [T]he best evidence rule should not be pushed beyond the reason upon which it rests. | 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. Goodwin
green
2 sentences2016State v. Goodwin, 223 Kan. 257, 259 , 573 P.2d 999 (1977). 2016State v. Goodwin, 223 Kan. 257, 259 , 573 P.2d 999 (1977). | 3 | 1980–2016 |
State v. Joseph Little
neutral
2 sentences1977(State v. Joseph Little, 201 Kan. 101, 104 , 439 P.2d 383 .) It was said in United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834, 845 [2d Cir. 1939], long before the advent of our present evidentiary code: “. . . [T]he best evidence rule should not be pushed beyond the reason upon which it rests. 1977(State v. Joseph Little, 201 Kan. 101, 104 , 439 P.2d 383 .) It was said in United States v. Manton, 107 F.2d 834, 845 [2d Cir. 1939], long before the advent of our present evidentiary code: “. . . [T]he best evidence rule should not be pushed beyond the reason upon which it rests. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Kime v. Ladd
neutral
2 sentences1927“A bank is guilty of fraud on a general depositor in accepting his deposit after the bank has become hopelessly insolvent and has committed an act- of insolvency, and the depositor may recover from the receiver of the bank to the extent the deposit augmented the funds coming into the hands of the receiver.” (Kime v. Ladd, 112 Kan. 603 , syh, 211 Pac. 628 .) “The general rule is to the effect that acceptance of general deposits by a bank which is hopelessly insolvent to the knowledge of its officers constitutes such a fraud as will entitle the unsuspecting depositor to rescind and recover back 1927“A bank is guilty of fraud on a general depositor in accepting his deposit after the bank has become hopelessly insolvent and has committed an act- of insolvency, and the depositor may recover from the receiver of the bank to the extent the deposit augmented the funds coming into the hands of the receiver.” (Kime v. Ladd, 112 Kan. 603 , syh, 211 Pac. 628 .) “The general rule is to the effect that acceptance of general deposits by a bank which is hopelessly insolvent to the knowledge of its officers constitutes such a fraud as will entitle the unsuspecting depositor to rescind and recover back | 1 | 1927–1927 |
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.
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.