rejection principle in Kansas

2021The City did not file a cross-petition for review of the panel's rejection of its claim that Adem's registration arguments were not yet ripe for appellate review. 58 Kan.

2016Heiland, 270 Kan. at 664-67 .

1989Regarding 60-1103(a), Gard writes: “[T]he right to a lien is expressly extended to protect persons furnishing labor, equipment, materials or supplies not only under an agreement with the contractor but also with ’a subcontractor of the contractor.’ This is a rejection of the principle of Nixon v. Cydon Lodge, [ 56 Kan. 298 , 43 Pac. 236 ], interpreting the former statute and holding that the lien provisions of the statute did not cover a subcontractor of a subcontractor.

1989Regarding 60-1103(a), Gard writes: “[T]he right to a lien is expressly extended to protect persons furnishing labor, equipment, materials or supplies not only under an agreement with the contractor but also with ’a subcontractor of the contractor.’ This is a rejection of the principle of Nixon v. Cydon Lodge, [ 56 Kan. 298 , 43 Pac. 236 ], interpreting the former statute and holding that the lien provisions of the statute did not cover a subcontractor of a subcontractor.

1989The extension under this subsection is not ad infinitem but protects only those dealing with a subcontractor of the one having the original contract.” Again, in his comment to 60-1111, the controlling statute in this case, Gard explains: “Prior to the amendment of the former statute in 1931 it had been held in Indiana Limestone Co. v. Cuthbert, [ 126 Kan. 262 , 267 Pac. 983 ], that limestone furnished to a subcontractor, and used in a building, was not the subject of a lien by the supplier.

1989The extension under this subsection is not ad infinitem but protects only those dealing with a subcontractor of the one having the original contract.” Again, in his comment to 60-1111, the controlling statute in this case, Gard explains: “Prior to the amendment of the former statute in 1931 it had been held in Indiana Limestone Co. v. Cuthbert, [ 126 Kan. 262 , 267 Pac. 983 ], that limestone furnished to a subcontractor, and used in a building, was not the subject of a lien by the supplier.

1924So far as pertinent, the agreed statement of facts had the same effect as recitals in the pleadings, and thus the plaintiff’s action was well founded whether required to be of the nature of an appeal or otherwise. -(Leisenring v. Pleasant Hill Township, 108 Kan. 29 , 193 Pac. 893 .) There was, indeed, a general denial in this case.

1924So far as pertinent, the agreed statement of facts had the same effect as recitals in the pleadings, and thus the plaintiff’s action was well founded whether required to be of the nature of an appeal or otherwise. -(Leisenring v. Pleasant Hill Township, 108 Kan. 29 , 193 Pac. 893 .) There was, indeed, a general denial in this case.