quality standard in Kansas

2008See, e.g., Newell, 239 Kan. at 557 (fraud; “On review, this court considers only the evidence of the successful party to determine whether it is substantial and whether it is of clear and convincing quality.”); Fox, 211 Kan. at 579-80 (fraud; “We have no hesitancy in finding that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard.”); In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 671 , 401 P.2d 279 (1965) (oral contract; “appellate court examines the record and must be satisfied that the findings of the trial court were supported by a quantum of competent and substantial testimony of the quality required by t

2008See, e.g., Newell, 239 Kan. at 557 (fraud; “On review, this court considers only the evidence of the successful party to determine whether it is substantial and whether it is of clear and convincing quality.”); Fox, 211 Kan. at 579-80 (fraud; “We have no hesitancy in finding that the evidence met the clear and convincing standard.”); In re Shirk’s Estate, 194 Kan. 671 , 401 P.2d 279 (1965) (oral contract; “appellate court examines the record and must be satisfied that the findings of the trial court were supported by a quantum of competent and substantial testimony of the quality required by t

1974Ed. 891 , 76 S. Ct. 585 , for the proposition that it is a denial of equal protection under the Constitution if the indigent defendant is denied a free tanscript and the quality of his defense made to depend upon his financial status.

1965In the recent case of In re Estate of Dull, 184 Kan. 233 , 336 P. 2d 435 , this court after reviewing the testimony of the material witnesses stated: “In view of the above and other testimony disclosed in the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficiently clear and convincing to support the judgment and findings of the trial court.” (p. 239.) The only difference in the statement of the rule in the two cases is that in the Shirk case the court said it would consider the evidence, and in the Dull case it in effect said it had considered the evidence, to determine if it was suff

1965In the recent case of In re Estate of Dull, 184 Kan. 233 , 336 P. 2d 435 , this court after reviewing the testimony of the material witnesses stated: “In view of the above and other testimony disclosed in the record, we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficiently clear and convincing to support the judgment and findings of the trial court.” (p. 239.) The only difference in the statement of the rule in the two cases is that in the Shirk case the court said it would consider the evidence, and in the Dull case it in effect said it had considered the evidence, to determine if it was suff

1939Counsel for appellants also remind us of the rale of law which exacts a quality and standard of evidence to prove a daughter’s claim for compensation for services to her aged parents much higher than is requisite to prove an ordinary issue of fact between litigants, because there is a presumption that such services are filial and gratuitous, and not intended to be compensated in money (Nelson v. Peterson, 147 Kan. 507 , 78 P. 2d 20 ).

1939Counsel for appellants also remind us of the rale of law which exacts a quality and standard of evidence to prove a daughter’s claim for compensation for services to her aged parents much higher than is requisite to prove an ordinary issue of fact between litigants, because there is a presumption that such services are filial and gratuitous, and not intended to be compensated in money (Nelson v. Peterson, 147 Kan. 507 , 78 P. 2d 20 ).