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 1 courts 1967–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. MacNeillgreen2 sentences1998In Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 76-77 , 502 N.E.2d 938, 942 (1987), the court held; “We conclude that for the Commonwealth successfully to demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver by a juvenile, in most cases it should show that a parent or an interested adult was present, understood the warnings, and had the opportunity to explain his rights to the juvenile so the juvenile understands the significance of waiver of these rights. 1998In Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 76-77 , 502 N.E.2d 938, 942 (1987), the court held; “We conclude that for the Commonwealth successfully to demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver by a juvenile, in most cases it should show that a parent or an interested adult was present, understood the warnings, and had the opportunity to explain his rights to the juvenile so the juvenile understands the significance of waiver of these rights. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J. Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Harvey County Comm'rs
neutral
2 sentences1994Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Harvey County Comm’rs, 253 Kan. 552 , 857 P.2d 666 (1993), we emphasized the significance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in taxation matters. 1994Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Harvey County Comm’rs, 253 Kan. 552 , 857 P.2d 666 (1993), we emphasized the significance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in taxation matters. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Fairbrother v. Wiley's, Inc.
green
2 sentences1972The definition of an “Act of God,” repeatedly used in our decisions, was last expressed in Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 203 Kan. 72 , 452 P. 2d 857 , as follows: “An ‘act of God’ as known in the law is an irresistible superhuman cause, such as no reasonable human foresight, prudence, diligence and care can anticipate and prevent.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) Also, in Fairbrother v. Wiley’s, Inc., 183 Kan. 579 , 331 P. 2d 330 , we stated: “Where an act of human negligence and some force of nature have concurred to produce an accident and injury, the fact that the force of nature contributed to the accident an 1972The definition of an “Act of God,” repeatedly used in our decisions, was last expressed in Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 203 Kan. 72 , 452 P. 2d 857 , as follows: “An ‘act of God’ as known in the law is an irresistible superhuman cause, such as no reasonable human foresight, prudence, diligence and care can anticipate and prevent.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) Also, in Fairbrother v. Wiley’s, Inc., 183 Kan. 579 , 331 P. 2d 330 , we stated: “Where an act of human negligence and some force of nature have concurred to produce an accident and injury, the fact that the force of nature contributed to the accident an | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation
green
2 sentences1972The definition of an “Act of God,” repeatedly used in our decisions, was last expressed in Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 203 Kan. 72 , 452 P. 2d 857 , as follows: “An ‘act of God’ as known in the law is an irresistible superhuman cause, such as no reasonable human foresight, prudence, diligence and care can anticipate and prevent.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) Also, in Fairbrother v. Wiley’s, Inc., 183 Kan. 579 , 331 P. 2d 330 , we stated: “Where an act of human negligence and some force of nature have concurred to produce an accident and injury, the fact that the force of nature contributed to the accident an 1972The definition of an “Act of God,” repeatedly used in our decisions, was last expressed in Lee v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 203 Kan. 72 , 452 P. 2d 857 , as follows: “An ‘act of God’ as known in the law is an irresistible superhuman cause, such as no reasonable human foresight, prudence, diligence and care can anticipate and prevent.” (Syl. ¶ 1.) Also, in Fairbrother v. Wiley’s, Inc., 183 Kan. 579 , 331 P. 2d 330 , we stated: “Where an act of human negligence and some force of nature have concurred to produce an accident and injury, the fact that the force of nature contributed to the accident an | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Tefft v. Wilcox
green
1 sentence1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Sly v. Powell
green
2 sentences1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. 1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Rainey v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. 1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic
neutral
2 sentences1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. 1967(Tefft v. Wilcox, 6 Kan. 46, 59 ; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142 , 123 Pac. 881 ; Rainey v. Smith, 109 Kan. 692, 694 , 201 Pac, 1106 ; Updegraff v. Gage-Hall Clinic, 125 Kan. 518 , 264 Pac. 1078 .) The significance of this rule will become manifest as we progress in our discussion. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.