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 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2025State v. Davis, 313 Kan. 244 , 248, 485 P.3d 174 (2021) (issue not briefed is deemed waived or abandoned). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mangus v. Stump
green
1 sentence2019Caselaw has recognized "the unique circumstances doctrine is still viable, in the appropriate situation, to prevent a cause of action from being barred by the statute of limitations." Mangus v. Stump , 45 Kan. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Board of County Commissioners v. City of Park City
green
2 sentences2019Further, we note that the issue of whether Bowles brought the viability of the doctrine into question in nonjurisdictional settings was not presented to or decided by the court in Finley ." (Emphasis added.) 293 Kan. at 118 -19 , 260 P.3d 387 . 2019Further, we note that the issue of whether Bowles brought the viability of the doctrine into question in nonjurisdictional settings was not presented to or decided by the court in Finley ." (Emphasis added.) 293 Kan. at 118 -19 , 260 P.3d 387 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Law v. Law Co. Building Associates
green
1 sentence2012“Our Supreme Court’s opinion in Kansas Baptist Convention demonstrates the viability of such a claim under remarkably similar circumstances.” Law, 42 Kan. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kansas Baptist Convention v. Mesa Operating Ltd. Partnership
green
2 sentences2009The court held that where one party to a contract has gained the ability to destroy or injure the economic interest of the other party, a claim may lie for breach of the implied covenant even through no express provisions of the contract have been breached. 253 Kan. at 725-26 , 864 P.2d 204 . 2009The court held that where one party to a contract has gained the ability to destroy or injure the economic interest of the other party, a claim may lie for breach of the implied covenant even through no express provisions of the contract have been breached. 253 Kan. at 725-26 , 864 P.2d 204 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Thompson v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1981Code in Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.S. 611 . 1981Code in Thompson v. Thompson, 218 U.S. 611 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.