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 1903–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Investment Litigationgreen2 sentences2019The sales *1132 between Credit Suisse and the Noteholders occurred wholly outside of Ohio; thus, applying [the Ohio Act] to the transactions would violate the extraterritoriality principle of the Commerce Clause." 755 F. Supp. 2d at 888 . 2019See National Century, 755 F. Supp. 2d at 883-84 . 38 The National Century court held that "under the transaction test, the conduct being regulated by the Ohio Securities Act is the sale and purchase of securities. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ingham v. Burnell
neutral
1 sentence1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Gee v. Thrailkill
green
1 sentence1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Rogers v. Richards
green
2 sentences1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. 1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Blackwell v. Blackwell
neutral
2 sentences1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. 1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Clester v. Clester
green
2 sentences1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. 1920(Ingham v. Burnell, 31 Kan. 333 , 2 Pac. 804 ; Gee v. Thrailkill, 45 Kan. 173 , 25 Pac. 588 ; Rogers v. Richards, 67 Kan. 706 , 74 Pac. 255 ; Blackwell v. Blackwell, 88 Kan. 495 , 129 Pac. 173 ; Clester v. Clester, 90 Kan. 638 , 135 Pac. 996 .) The conveyance was not the result of accident or mistake, and the plaintiff must obtain relief, if at all, on the ground of fraud. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Goff v. Goff
green
2 sentences1920This amounted to a conveyance of the title, and in the absence of fraud or mistake is regarded as conclusive evidence of the transfer of the beneficial interest, precluding a showing of want of consideration for the purpose of establishing an implied trust.” (Goff v. Goff, 98 Kan. 201, 204 , 158 Pac. 26 .) Unless, therefore, there were fraud, accident or mistake in the transaction under analysis, the deed was not impeachable by parol evidence which would contradict its legal effect as an absolute conveyance. 1920This amounted to a conveyance of the title, and in the absence of fraud or mistake is regarded as conclusive evidence of the transfer of the beneficial interest, precluding a showing of want of consideration for the purpose of establishing an implied trust.” (Goff v. Goff, 98 Kan. 201, 204 , 158 Pac. 26 .) Unless, therefore, there were fraud, accident or mistake in the transaction under analysis, the deed was not impeachable by parol evidence which would contradict its legal effect as an absolute conveyance. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
National Bank v. Case
green
1 sentence1916(National Bank v. Case, 99 U. S. 628 .) It is suggested by the defendants that the transaction was in violation of the penal statute -(Gen. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
State v. Horneman
green
1 sentence1903The rule is thus stated by Wharton in his Criminal Law (1 Wharton, 7th ed., § 565) : ‘It may be generally said that the fact that the two offenses form part of the same transaction is no defense when the defendant could not have been convicted at the first trial, on the indictment then pending, of the offense charged in the second indictment.’ ’’ (The State v. Horneman, 16 Kan. 452 .) “Now, although the matters charged in both complaints occurred at the same time and grew out of the' same difficulty, still we think that they constituted two different offenses against the city ordinances of the | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.