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 1977–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
James v. City of Wichitagreen2 sentences1987See James v. City of Wichita, 202 Kan. 222, 225 , 447 P.2d 817 (1968). 1987See James v. City of Wichita, 202 Kan. 222, 225 , 447 P.2d 817 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., Etc.green2 sentences1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. 1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. | 1 | 1 |
Hudmon v. Thomassongreen2 sentences1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. 1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Workmangreen1 sentence1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. | 1 | 1 |
Barrett v. Steelegreen2 sentences1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. 1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. | 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. Kaiser
green
2 sentences2018Also, the trial court correctly denied Calhoun's motion for new trial based on Kaiser , a case where our Supreme Court held that a juror's agreement to a verdict that was followed by a change of mind after entering the verdict was not a basis for a new trial. 260 Kan. at 249 -52 , 918 P.2d 629 . 2018Also, the trial court correctly denied Calhoun's motion for new trial based on Kaiser , a case where our Supreme Court held that a juror's agreement to a verdict that was followed by a change of mind after entering the verdict was not a basis for a new trial. 260 Kan. at 249 -52 , 918 P.2d 629 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Thompson v. State
green
2 sentences2013In reaffirming its holding in Pabst , our Supreme Court in Thompson v. State, 293 Kan. 704, 714 , 270 P.3d 1089 (2011), stated the following: “If an amendment to a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is permitted, the timeliness of amended claims is subject to the Pabst time and type test enunciated in K.S.A. 60-215(c), i.e., relation back is permitted only if the new claims arose ‘out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.’ ” Neither Shumway nor the State has graced us with an argument concerning the relation back test. 2013In reaffirming its holding in Pabst , our Supreme Court in Thompson v. State, 293 Kan. 704, 714 , 270 P.3d 1089 (2011), stated the following: “If an amendment to a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion is permitted, the timeliness of amended claims is subject to the Pabst time and type test enunciated in K.S.A. 60-215(c), i.e., relation back is permitted only if the new claims arose ‘out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading.’ ” Neither Shumway nor the State has graced us with an argument concerning the relation back test. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Pabst v. State
green
2 sentences2010Subsequent to Ludlow , the Kansas Supreme Court addressed the relation-back doctrine in Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 , 192 P.3d 630 (2008). 2010Subsequent to Ludlow , the Kansas Supreme Court addressed the relation-back doctrine in Pabst v. State, 287 Kan. 1 , 192 P.3d 630 (2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Scott v. Blades Lumber Co.
neutral
2 sentences1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. 1977C. 1945]; Griffin v. Workman, 73 So. 2d 844, 846 [Fla. 1954]; Hudmon v. Thomasson, 74 Ga.App. 31 , 38 S.E.2d 683, 685 [1946]; Panke v. Louisville Trust Co., 303 Ky. 579 , 198 S.W.2d 313, 315 [1946]; Scott v. Lumber Co., 144 N.C. 44 , 56 S.E. 548 [1907]; Barrett v. Steele, 189 Okla. 501 , 117 P.2d 1020, 1022 [1941].) When the doctrine of relation back applies, as in this case, it is necessary that the will be proved and recorded in the county where the land is situated, and when the will is so admitted after the date of the conveyance, it will relate back and render the contract valid. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.