has recognized rule in Kansas

1998In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: ‘ “. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]” ’ ” State v. One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 8 Kan.

1998In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: ‘ “. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]” ’ ” State v. One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 8 Kan.

2005Arredondo v. Duckwall Stores, Inc., 227 Kan. 842 , 610 P.2d 1107 (1980); Kendrick v. Atchison, T. & S.F.

2005Arredondo v. Duckwall Stores, Inc., 227 Kan. 842 , 610 P.2d 1107 (1980); Kendrick v. Atchison, T. & S.F.

1983The line becomes the true dividing line between the lands in question by virtue of such an agreement, even though a subsequent survey should establish a different boundary line.” Moore v. Bayless, 215 Kan. 297, 300 , 524 P.2d 721 (1974).

1983The line becomes the true dividing line between the lands in question by virtue of such an agreement, even though a subsequent survey should establish a different boundary line.” Moore v. Bayless, 215 Kan. 297, 300 , 524 P.2d 721 (1974).

1945In Harrison v. Scott, 77 Kan. 637 , 95 Pac. 1045 , and in City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 92 Kan. 518 , 141 Pac. 589 , the court quoted, with approval, the statement found in 25 Cyc. 1278, as follows: “ ‘Where a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his rights.’ (p. 525.)” In Harrison v. Scott, supra, it was held: “In order that the pendency of other proceedings will have the effect to toll the statute of limitations

1945In Harrison v. Scott, 77 Kan. 637 , 95 Pac. 1045 , and in City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 92 Kan. 518 , 141 Pac. 589 , the court quoted, with approval, the statement found in 25 Cyc. 1278, as follows: “ ‘Where a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his rights.’ (p. 525.)” In Harrison v. Scott, supra, it was held: “In order that the pendency of other proceedings will have the effect to toll the statute of limitations

1945In Harrison v. Scott, 77 Kan. 637 , 95 Pac. 1045 , and in City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 92 Kan. 518 , 141 Pac. 589 , the court quoted, with approval, the statement found in 25 Cyc. 1278, as follows: “ ‘Where a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his rights.’ (p. 525.)” In Harrison v. Scott, supra, it was held: “In order that the pendency of other proceedings will have the effect to toll the statute of limitations

1945In Harrison v. Scott, 77 Kan. 637 , 95 Pac. 1045 , and in City of Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 92 Kan. 518 , 141 Pac. 589 , the court quoted, with approval, the statement found in 25 Cyc. 1278, as follows: “ ‘Where a person is prevented from exercising his legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings, the time during which he is thus prevented should not be counted against him in determining whether limitations have barred his rights.’ (p. 525.)” In Harrison v. Scott, supra, it was held: “In order that the pendency of other proceedings will have the effect to toll the statute of limitations

2012Conn, 278 Kan. at 395 ; see also State v. Boyd, 275 Kan. 271, 274 , 64 P.3d 419 (2003) (“[T]he Kansas Supreme Court [has] recognized that exigent circumstances may allow the warrantless search of a vehicle when probable cause has been established to justify a search.”); State v. Jaso, 231 Kan. 614, 622 , 648 P.2d 1 (1982) (“We hold that when police officers have made a lawful stop of a vehicle and have probable cause to believe that contraband is in the vehicle the officers may search every area of the vehicle and its contents which might reasonably contain the contraband . . . .”); State v. H

2012Conn, 278 Kan. at 395 ; see also State v. Boyd, 275 Kan. 271, 274 , 64 P.3d 419 (2003) (“[T]he Kansas Supreme Court [has] recognized that exigent circumstances may allow the warrantless search of a vehicle when probable cause has been established to justify a search.”); State v. Jaso, 231 Kan. 614, 622 , 648 P.2d 1 (1982) (“We hold that when police officers have made a lawful stop of a vehicle and have probable cause to believe that contraband is in the vehicle the officers may search every area of the vehicle and its contents which might reasonably contain the contraband . . . .”); State v. H

2012Conn, 278 Kan. at 395 ; see also State v. Boyd, 275 Kan. 271, 274 , 64 P.3d 419 (2003) (“[T]he Kansas Supreme Court [has] recognized that exigent circumstances may allow the warrantless search of a vehicle when probable cause has been established to justify a search.”); State v. Jaso, 231 Kan. 614, 622 , 648 P.2d 1 (1982) (“We hold that when police officers have made a lawful stop of a vehicle and have probable cause to believe that contraband is in the vehicle the officers may search every area of the vehicle and its contents which might reasonably contain the contraband . . . .”); State v. H

2004However, this court has recognized an exception to the general rule in State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 838 , 896 P.2d 1059 (1995).

2004However, this court has recognized an exception to the general rule in State v. Alford, 257 Kan. 830, 838 , 896 P.2d 1059 (1995).

1998In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: ‘ “. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]” ’ ” State v. One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 8 Kan.

1998App. 2d 747, 752 , 667 P.2d 893 (1983).

1992McDaniel v. Jones, 235 Kan. 93 , 679 P.2d 682 (1984).

1992McDaniel v. Jones, 235 Kan. 93 , 679 P.2d 682 (1984).

1987This court has recognized an exception where the tortious act occurred prior to marriage, O’Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964), and where the tort was intentional, Stevens v. Stevens, 231 Kan. 726 , 647 P.2d 1346 (1982).

1987This court has recognized an exception where the tortious act occurred prior to marriage, O’Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964), and where the tort was intentional, Stevens v. Stevens, 231 Kan. 726 , 647 P.2d 1346 (1982).

1987This court has recognized an exception where the tortious act occurred prior to marriage, O’Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964), and where the tort was intentional, Stevens v. Stevens, 231 Kan. 726 , 647 P.2d 1346 (1982).

1987This court has recognized an exception where the tortious act occurred prior to marriage, O’Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644 , 396 P.2d 285 (1964), and where the tort was intentional, Stevens v. Stevens, 231 Kan. 726 , 647 P.2d 1346 (1982).

1983In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: “ ‘. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]’ (p. 713.)” State, ex. rel. v. A Quantity of Copies of Books, 197 Kan. 306, 315 , 416 P.2d 703 (1966), rev'd mem. per curiam 388 U.S. 452 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1314 , 87 S.Ct. 2104 (1967).

1983In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: “ ‘. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]’ (p. 713.)” State, ex. rel. v. A Quantity of Copies of Books, 197 Kan. 306, 315 , 416 P.2d 703 (1966), rev'd mem. per curiam 388 U.S. 452 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1314 , 87 S.Ct. 2104 (1967).

1983In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: “ ‘. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]’ (p. 713.)” State, ex. rel. v. A Quantity of Copies of Books, 197 Kan. 306, 315 , 416 P.2d 703 (1966), rev'd mem. per curiam 388 U.S. 452 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1314 , 87 S.Ct. 2104 (1967).

1983In Cities Service Gas Co. v. State Corporation Commission, 192 Kan. 707 , 391 P.2d 74 , we find this: “ ‘. . . this court has recognized the rule that where no express provision for notice is made in the statute, if there be nothing in the statute which prevents notice from being given, the requirement of reasonable notice will be implied. [Citations omitted.]’ (p. 713.)” State, ex. rel. v. A Quantity of Copies of Books, 197 Kan. 306, 315 , 416 P.2d 703 (1966), rev'd mem. per curiam 388 U.S. 452 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1314 , 87 S.Ct. 2104 (1967).

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1976(Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638 , 298 P. 2d 316 ; State, ex rel., v. Fleming Co., 184 Kan. 674 , 339 P. 2d 12 ; Groene v. State, 195 Kan. 740 , 408 P. 2d 580 ; Delight Wholesale Co. v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 99 , 453 P. 2d 82 ; Strader v. Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 206 Kan. 392 , 479 P. 2d 860 ; Manzanares v. Bell, 214 Kan. 589 , 522 P. 2d 1291 .) None of our decisions involved sodomy statutes.

1971(See Pearson v. United States, 389 F. 2d 684 .) While this court has recognized the rule espoused by the Wade-Gilbert twins, we have not heretofore been confronted with the precise factual situation obtaining here.

1964(Railroad Co. v. Abilene, 78 Kan. 820, 827 , 98 Pac. 224 ; Tatlow v. Bacon, 101 Kan. 26 , 165 Pac. 835 ; State, ex rel., v. Allen County Comm’rs, 143 Kan. 898, 901, 902 , 57 P. 2d 450 .) In reality, the court simply reads the provision into the statute in order to uphold its validity as against the Fourteenth Amendment and Sections 2 and 18 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kansas.

1964(Railroad Co. v. Abilene, 78 Kan. 820, 827 , 98 Pac. 224 ; Tatlow v. Bacon, 101 Kan. 26 , 165 Pac. 835 ; State, ex rel., v. Allen County Comm’rs, 143 Kan. 898, 901, 902 , 57 P. 2d 450 .) In reality, the court simply reads the provision into the statute in order to uphold its validity as against the Fourteenth Amendment and Sections 2 and 18 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kansas.

1960This court has recognized this rule in Railway Co. v. Railway Co., 67 Kan. 569 , 70 Pac. 939 , 73 Pac. 899 .

1960This court has recognized this rule in Railway Co. v. Railway Co., 67 Kan. 569 , 70 Pac. 939 , 73 Pac. 899 .

1952This court has recognized the rule that entrapment may be pleaded as a defense to an action as early as the year 1894 in the case of State v. Stickney, 53 Kan. 308 , 36 Pac. 714 , and as late as the year 1945 in the case of State v. Herschberger, 160 Kan. 514 , 163 P. 2d 407 .

1952See also State v. Lovell, 127 Kan. 157 , 272 Pac. 666; and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435 , 77 L.

1952See also State v. Lovell, 127 Kan. 157 , 272 Pac. 666; and Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435 , 77 L.

1952This court has recognized the rule that entrapment may be pleaded as a defense to an action as early as the year 1894 in the case of State v. Stickney, 53 Kan. 308 , 36 Pac. 714 , and as late as the year 1945 in the case of State v. Herschberger, 160 Kan. 514 , 163 P. 2d 407 .