specifications error in Kansas

1957An analogous situation was presented in Marion County Comm’rs v. Clark, 157 Kan. 132 , 138 P. 2d 449 , where it was said; “ ‘Appellant is not compelled to specify error on every ruling, decision and judgment included in its notice of appeal.

1957An analogous situation was presented in Marion County Comm’rs v. Clark, 157 Kan. 132 , 138 P. 2d 449 , where it was said; “ ‘Appellant is not compelled to specify error on every ruling, decision and judgment included in its notice of appeal.

1955We first take note of the appellees’ contention that the specifications of error are insufficient in that they merely say that the trial court erred in rendering judgment, and that under our decisions in Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717 , 121 P. 2d 196 ; Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; and Moeller v. Moeller, 175 Kan. 848 , 267 P. 2d 536 , nothing is presented for our review.

1955We first take note of the appellees’ contention that the specifications of error are insufficient in that they merely say that the trial court erred in rendering judgment, and that under our decisions in Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717 , 121 P. 2d 196 ; Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; and Moeller v. Moeller, 175 Kan. 848 , 267 P. 2d 536 , nothing is presented for our review.

1955We first take note of the appellees’ contention that the specifications of error are insufficient in that they merely say that the trial court erred in rendering judgment, and that under our decisions in Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717 , 121 P. 2d 196 ; Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; and Moeller v. Moeller, 175 Kan. 848 , 267 P. 2d 536 , nothing is presented for our review.

1955We first take note of the appellees’ contention that the specifications of error are insufficient in that they merely say that the trial court erred in rendering judgment, and that under our decisions in Lumber Co. v. Smith, 84 Kan. 190 , 114 Pac. 372 ; Heniff v. Clausen, 154 Kan. 717 , 121 P. 2d 196 ; Lambeth v. Bogart, 155 Kan. 413 , 125 P. 2d 377 ; and Moeller v. Moeller, 175 Kan. 848 , 267 P. 2d 536 , nothing is presented for our review.

1950(Drenning v. City of Topeka, 148 Kan. 366 , 81 P. 2d 720 .)” (p. 3.) Here the ruling on the demurrer preceded the judgment, the appeal from the judgment was taken in time, and the alleged erroneous ruling (on the demurrer) was one of the specifications of error.

1950(Drenning v. City of Topeka, 148 Kan. 366 , 81 P. 2d 720 .)” (p. 3.) Here the ruling on the demurrer preceded the judgment, the appeal from the judgment was taken in time, and the alleged erroneous ruling (on the demurrer) was one of the specifications of error.

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2008State v. McCown, 264 Kan. 655, 656 , 957 P.2d 401 (1998) (refusing to address the defendant’s argument regarding jury instructions because the defendant failed to brief the argument and raised it for the first time at. oral argument); State v. Marsh, 193 Kan. 302, 305 , 392 P.2d 953 , cert, denied 380 U.S. 910 (1964) (denying counsel’s request at oral argument to enlarge the specifications of error to include additional issues); State v. Young, 190 Kan. 403, 404 , 375 P.2d 783 (1962) (same); State v. Hamilton, 185 Kan. 101, 102 , 340 P.2d 390 , cert, denied 361 U.S. 920 (1959) (same); Mansfiel

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

2000See State v. Aeby, 191 Kan. 333, 335 , 381 P.2d 356 (1963) (the court had no jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s specifications of error as appellant had failed to specifically set forth, the errors in his notice of appeal); State v. Burnett, 189 Kan. 31, 33 , 367 P.2d 67 (1961) (an appellant is not “entitled to a review of every matter involved in his trial and sentence without complying with the well-established rules of procedure relating to appellate review”); State v. Jones, 187 Kan. 318, 319 , 356 P.2d 843 (1960) (the court had no jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s appeal concerni

1969(State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 395 , 449 P. 2d 566 , State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P. 2d 342 .) The specifications of error already discussed dispose of defendant’s additional contention the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial.

1969(State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 395 , 449 P. 2d 566 , State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P. 2d 342 .) The specifications of error already discussed dispose of defendant’s additional contention the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial.

1969(State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 395 , 449 P. 2d 566 , State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P. 2d 342 .) The specifications of error already discussed dispose of defendant’s additional contention the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial.

1969(State v. Satterfield, 202 Kan. 395 , 449 P. 2d 566 , State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P. 2d 342 .) The specifications of error already discussed dispose of defendant’s additional contention the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial.

1969In State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P. 2d 106 , we said: “The means whereby or the manner in which an extrajudicial identification is made goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” (Syl. f 2.) (Also, see, State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551 , 451 P. 2d 148 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4 , 422 P. 2d 898 .) The remaining specifications of error relate to defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to ravish in violation of 21-431.

1969In State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P. 2d 106 , we said: “The means whereby or the manner in which an extrajudicial identification is made goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” (Syl. f 2.) (Also, see, State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551 , 451 P. 2d 148 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4 , 422 P. 2d 898 .) The remaining specifications of error relate to defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to ravish in violation of 21-431.

1969In State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P. 2d 106 , we said: “The means whereby or the manner in which an extrajudicial identification is made goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” (Syl. f 2.) (Also, see, State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551 , 451 P. 2d 148 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4 , 422 P. 2d 898 .) The remaining specifications of error relate to defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to ravish in violation of 21-431.

1969In State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P. 2d 106 , we said: “The means whereby or the manner in which an extrajudicial identification is made goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” (Syl. f 2.) (Also, see, State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551 , 451 P. 2d 148 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4 , 422 P. 2d 898 .) The remaining specifications of error relate to defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to ravish in violation of 21-431.

1969In State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P. 2d 106 , we said: “The means whereby or the manner in which an extrajudicial identification is made goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” (Syl. f 2.) (Also, see, State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551 , 451 P. 2d 148 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4 , 422 P. 2d 898 .) The remaining specifications of error relate to defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to ravish in violation of 21-431.

1969In State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512 , 394 P. 2d 106 , we said: “The means whereby or the manner in which an extrajudicial identification is made goes to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility.” (Syl. f 2.) (Also, see, State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551 , 451 P. 2d 148 ; and State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4 , 422 P. 2d 898 .) The remaining specifications of error relate to defendant’s conviction of assault with intent to ravish in violation of 21-431.

1968In State v. Fields, 182 Kan. 180 , 318 P. 2d 1018 , at page 184 it is stated: “Under the provisions of G.

1968In State v. Fields, 182 Kan. 180 , 318 P. 2d 1018 , at page 184 it is stated: “Under the provisions of G.

1967A similar attack was made by a Wisconsin driver in State v. Stehlek, 262 Wis. 642 , 56 N.W.2d 514 (1953), on facts almost identical to those in the case at bar with one exception; namely, the Wisconsin statute imposing criminal liability differs substantially from the corresponding section of the Kansas statute. (8-761, supra. ) The Wisconsin section prescribing penalties (Wisconsin Statutes Annotated, Volume 14, § 85.09 [32]) reads: "( a ) Any person whose license or registration or nonresident's operating privileges has been suspended or revoked under this chapter and who, during such suspen

1967A similar attack was made by a Wisconsin driver in State v. Stehlek, 262 Wis. 642 , 56 N.W.2d 514 (1953), on facts almost identical to those in the case at bar with one exception; namely, the Wisconsin statute imposing criminal liability differs substantially from the corresponding section of the Kansas statute. (8-761, supra. ) The Wisconsin section prescribing penalties (Wisconsin Statutes Annotated, Volume 14, § 85.09 [32]) reads: "( a ) Any person whose license or registration or nonresident's operating privileges has been suspended or revoked under this chapter and who, during such suspen

1966It is readily apparent the first six specifications pertain only to trial errors (State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162 , 403 P. 2d 996 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 948 , 15 L.

1966It is readily apparent the first six specifications pertain only to trial errors (State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162 , 403 P. 2d 996 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 948 , 15 L.

1966It is readily apparent the first six specifications pertain only to trial errors (State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162 , 403 P. 2d 996 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 948 , 15 L.

1966It is readily apparent the first six specifications pertain only to trial errors (State v. Carpenter, 195 Kan. 162 , 403 P. 2d 996 , cert. den. 382 U. S. 948 , 15 L.

1965(State v. Malone, 194 Kan. 563 , 400 P. 2d 712 .) Notwithstanding our rule, we have carefully considered each of the specifications of error and find nothing approaching reversible error. *571 Defendant has had the benefit of able and competent counsel at the trial and also in the presentation of his appeal.

1965(State v. Malone, 194 Kan. 563 , 400 P. 2d 712 .) Notwithstanding our rule, we have carefully considered each of the specifications of error and find nothing approaching reversible error. *571 Defendant has had the benefit of able and competent counsel at the trial and also in the presentation of his appeal.

1963In Clarkson v. Mangrum, 186 Kan. 105 , 348 P. 2d 607 , the jurisdictional question was raised and determined because while, as here, only trial errors were involved, the notice of appeal indicated it was taken from the judgment of the trial court and not from the order overruling the motion for new trial.

1963In Clarkson v. Mangrum, 186 Kan. 105 , 348 P. 2d 607 , the jurisdictional question was raised and determined because while, as here, only trial errors were involved, the notice of appeal indicated it was taken from the judgment of the trial court and not from the order overruling the motion for new trial.