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 1902–1957 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence1918If this conclusion embraced language similar to that pointed out in the cases to which we have heretofore deferred, such as ‘against the peace and dignity of our said State,’ or ‘against the peace and dignity of State of Missouri,’ it might be very properly ruled that such language was at least equivalent to the language prescribed by the Constitution, for the reason that it indicated the power and authority against which the offense as charged in the body of the indictment constitutes an offense.” (State v. Campbell, 210 Mo. 202, 224, 225 .) Whatever may be thought of the application there ma | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Russell v. Newman
green
2 sentences1957Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, § 97, p. 213, we note that an operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not complete until the sponges are properly removed and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon ( Russell v. Newman, 116 Kan. 268, 270 , 226 Pac. 752 , Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 237, 238 , 255 P.2d 1033 ) although there are many cases which take the view that such a failure on the part of the surgeon is negligence per se. 1957Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, § 97, p. 213, we note that an operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not complete until the sponges are properly removed and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon ( Russell v. Newman, 116 Kan. 268, 270 , 226 Pac. 752 , Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 237, 238 , 255 P.2d 1033 ) although there are many cases which take the view that such a failure on the part of the surgeon is negligence per se. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Bernsden v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1957Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, § 97, p. 213, we note that an operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not complete until the sponges are properly removed and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon ( Russell v. Newman, 116 Kan. 268, 270 , 226 Pac. 752 , Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 237, 238 , 255 P.2d 1033 ) although there are many cases which take the view that such a failure on the part of the surgeon is negligence per se. 1957Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, § 97, p. 213, we note that an operation requiring the placing of sponges in the incision is not complete until the sponges are properly removed and it is settled that the leaving of sponges or other foreign substances in the wound after the incision has been closed is at least prima facie negligence by the operating surgeon ( Russell v. Newman, 116 Kan. 268, 270 , 226 Pac. 752 , Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 237, 238 , 255 P.2d 1033 ) although there are many cases which take the view that such a failure on the part of the surgeon is negligence per se. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Cuthbert v. . Chauvet
green
1 sentence1925L. 1282.) This language was quoted from a case where the trustee had no discretion (Cuthbert v. Chauvet, 136 N. Y. 326 ), and was obviously intended as a statement of the general rule and not as a modification of it. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
People v. Sánchez
neutral
1 sentence1905In a later case, Fleming v. Greene, 48 Kan. 646 , 30 Pac. 11 , while the precise point was not directly involved, the court quoted with approval a statement of the general doctrine taken from Widoe v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431 , 5 Am. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Fleming v. Greene
neutral
1 sentence1905In a later case, Fleming v. Greene, 48 Kan. 646 , 30 Pac. 11 , while the precise point was not directly involved, the court quoted with approval a statement of the general doctrine taken from Widoe v. Webb, 20 Ohio St. 431 , 5 Am. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Higbee v. McMillan
neutral
1 sentence1902The language of the opinion in Higbee v. McMillan, 18 Kan. 133 , while not having relation to a state of facts identical with those in this case, nevertheless declares a principle applicable to the general question, and definitely and positively settles the rule against the contention of the defendant in error. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.