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 1897–1964 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 |
|---|---|---|
Waldorf v. Waldorfgreen2 sentences1962See In re Estate of Thompson, 164 Kan. 518, 523 , 190 P. 2d 879 , cited and applied in Hildenbrand v. Brand, 183 Kan. 414 , 327 P. 2d 887 , where it was held: “Generally speaking, when the purpose of an action or claim is to bring something into an estate of a decedent, that is, when an estate has a claim which its personal representative is attempting to enforce, the action is to be filed in the district court or some other court of competent jurisdiction.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) The judgment is reversed. 1962See In re Estate of Thompson, 164 Kan. 518, 523 , 190 P. 2d 879 , cited and applied in Hildenbrand v. Brand, 183 Kan. 414 , 327 P. 2d 887 , where it was held: “Generally speaking, when the purpose of an action or claim is to bring something into an estate of a decedent, that is, when an estate has a claim which its personal representative is attempting to enforce, the action is to be filed in the district court or some other court of competent jurisdiction.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) The judgment is reversed. | 1 | 1 |
Hildenbrand v. Brandgreen2 sentences1962See In re Estate of Thompson, 164 Kan. 518, 523 , 190 P. 2d 879 , cited and applied in Hildenbrand v. Brand, 183 Kan. 414 , 327 P. 2d 887 , where it was held: “Generally speaking, when the purpose of an action or claim is to bring something into an estate of a decedent, that is, when an estate has a claim which its personal representative is attempting to enforce, the action is to be filed in the district court or some other court of competent jurisdiction.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) The judgment is reversed. 1962See In re Estate of Thompson, 164 Kan. 518, 523 , 190 P. 2d 879 , cited and applied in Hildenbrand v. Brand, 183 Kan. 414 , 327 P. 2d 887 , where it was held: “Generally speaking, when the purpose of an action or claim is to bring something into an estate of a decedent, that is, when an estate has a claim which its personal representative is attempting to enforce, the action is to be filed in the district court or some other court of competent jurisdiction.” (Syl. ¶ 2.) The judgment is reversed. | 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. Combs
neutral
2 sentences1964(State v. Combs, 186 Kan. 247 , 350 P. 2d 129 .)” (p. 32.) (Emphasis supplied.) And so here, since the appellant’s third specification of error was not included in his motion for a new trial and since it must be conceded he did not appeal from the order refusing to discharge him, the decision just cited compels a conclusion his third specification of error presents nothing for appellate review. 1964(State v. Combs, 186 Kan. 247 , 350 P. 2d 129 .)” (p. 32.) (Emphasis supplied.) And so here, since the appellant’s third specification of error was not included in his motion for a new trial and since it must be conceded he did not appeal from the order refusing to discharge him, the decision just cited compels a conclusion his third specification of error presents nothing for appellate review. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Hamilton v. Binger
green
2 sentences1950In regard to the third specification of error, this court has repeatedly held that an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment amounts to nothing more than a statement that the decision is wrong; it does not specify any error, and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court (Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 418 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited; Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 192 , 200 P. 2d 283 ; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 157 , 211 P. 2d 85 ). 1950In regard to the third specification of error, this court has repeatedly held that an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment amounts to nothing more than a statement that the decision is wrong; it does not specify any error, and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court (Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 418 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited; Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 192 , 200 P. 2d 283 ; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 157 , 211 P. 2d 85 ). | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner
neutral
2 sentences1950In regard to the third specification of error, this court has repeatedly held that an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment amounts to nothing more than a statement that the decision is wrong; it does not specify any error, and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court (Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 418 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited; Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 192 , 200 P. 2d 283 ; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 157 , 211 P. 2d 85 ). 1950In regard to the third specification of error, this court has repeatedly held that an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment amounts to nothing more than a statement that the decision is wrong; it does not specify any error, and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court (Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 418 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited; Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 192 , 200 P. 2d 283 ; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 157 , 211 P. 2d 85 ). | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Bisagno v. Lane
neutral
2 sentences1950In regard to the third specification of error, this court has repeatedly held that an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment amounts to nothing more than a statement that the decision is wrong; it does not specify any error, and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court (Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 418 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited; Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 192 , 200 P. 2d 283 ; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 157 , 211 P. 2d 85 ). 1950In regard to the third specification of error, this court has repeatedly held that an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in rendering its judgment amounts to nothing more than a statement that the decision is wrong; it does not specify any error, and presents no reviewable ruling to an appellate court (Hamilton v. Binger, 162 Kan. 415, 418 , 176 P. 2d 553 , and cases there cited; Cimarron Co-operative Equity Exchange v. Warner, 166 Kan. 190, 192 , 200 P. 2d 283 ; Bisagno v. Lane, 168 Kan. 153, 157 , 211 P. 2d 85 ). | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Union National Bank v. Fruits
neutral
2 sentences1930(Union Nat’l Bank v. Fruits, 124 Kan. 440 , 260 Pac. 638 .) Turning, then, to the third specification of error, which, it may be noted, was the only matter urged in appellant’s motion for a new trial, it is difficult for an appellate court which has not seen the litigants and must glean its information from the record to discover any injustice in the division of the property or in the award of alimony. 1930(Union Nat’l Bank v. Fruits, 124 Kan. 440 , 260 Pac. 638 .) Turning, then, to the third specification of error, which, it may be noted, was the only matter urged in appellant’s motion for a new trial, it is difficult for an appellate court which has not seen the litigants and must glean its information from the record to discover any injustice in the division of the property or in the award of alimony. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Montana Township v. Ruark
neutral
1 sentence1897The case of Montana Township v. Ruark ( 39 Kan. 109 ), which is not cited, is conclusive upon this point, and settles also the third specification of error, and both propositions are settled in favor of the plaintiffs in error. | 1 | 1897–1897 |
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.