5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1924–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fender Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence1986Fender Pipe & Supply, 5 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re JA
green
2 sentences2025In In re J.A., 30 Kan. 2025App. 2d 416, 422 , 42 P.3d 215 (2002), a panel considered whether the statute's verification requirement applied to those who had not been personally served with process. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
DaMac Drilling, Inc. v. Shoemake
green
1 sentence1992App. 2d 38, 42-44 , 713 P.2d 480 (1986) (applying the verification requirement of K.S.A. 55-209). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co.
green
2 sentences1987Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 636 , 400 P.2d 707 (1965). 1987Ekstrom United Supply Co. v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co., 194 Kan. 634, 636 , 400 P.2d 707 (1965). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Dechant ex rel. Dechant v. City of Hays
green
2 sentences1924S. 12-105; Dechant v. City of Hays, 112 Kan. 729 , 212 Pac. 682 .) It is argued that the notice relied on was ineffective because in the verification of the claim a reference was made to the earlier statute (R. 1924S. 12-105; Dechant v. City of Hays, 112 Kan. 729 , 212 Pac. 682 .) It is argued that the notice relied on was ineffective because in the verification of the claim a reference was made to the earlier statute (R. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.