immunity doctrine in Kansas

1982See Baker v. Erbert, 199 Kan. 59, 427 P.2d 461 ; Phoenix Joint Stock Land Bank v. Eells, 158 Kan. 530 , 148 P.2d 732 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 120 Kan. 477 , 243 Pac. 1040 ; and cases cited therein.’ (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 71.) “The February 6, 1973, service of process was not void, but irregular.

1982See Baker v. Erbert, 199 Kan. 59, 427 P.2d 461 ; Phoenix Joint Stock Land Bank v. Eells, 158 Kan. 530 , 148 P.2d 732 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 120 Kan. 477 , 243 Pac. 1040 ; and cases cited therein.’ (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 71.) “The February 6, 1973, service of process was not void, but irregular.

1982See Baker v. Erbert, 199 Kan. 59, 427 P.2d 461 ; Phoenix Joint Stock Land Bank v. Eells, 158 Kan. 530 , 148 P.2d 732 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 120 Kan. 477 , 243 Pac. 1040 ; and cases cited therein.’ (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 71.) “The February 6, 1973, service of process was not void, but irregular.

1982See Baker v. Erbert, 199 Kan. 59, 427 P.2d 461 ; Phoenix Joint Stock Land Bank v. Eells, 158 Kan. 530 , 148 P.2d 732 ; Eaton v. Eaton, 120 Kan. 477 , 243 Pac. 1040 ; and cases cited therein.’ (Emphasis supplied.) (p. 71.) “The February 6, 1973, service of process was not void, but irregular.

2022Accordingly, appellate review is de novo.'" Williams v. 14 C-U-Out Bail Bonds, 310 Kan. 775 , 794, 450 P.3d 330 (2019) (quoting Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73 , Syl. ¶ 4, 238 P.3d 278 [2010]).

2022Accordingly, appellate review is de novo.'" Williams v. 14 C-U-Out Bail Bonds, 310 Kan. 775 , 794, 450 P.3d 330 (2019) (quoting Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73 , Syl. ¶ 4, 238 P.3d 278 [2010]).

2021In State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828 , Syl. ¶ 3, 295 P.3d 1020 (2013), our Supreme Court held that if a trial court uses the wrong standard of proof at an immunity hearing, that error may be harmless if there is no reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.

2021In State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828 , Syl. ¶ 3, 295 P.3d 1020 (2013), our Supreme Court held that if a trial court uses the wrong standard of proof at an immunity hearing, that error may be harmless if there is no reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial.

2017The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Ultreras declined to outline the procedures for presenting or resolving an immunity claim but explained, "This case requires us to fill that void." 51 Kan.

2016Hardy, 51 Kan.

1975We ... decline to engraft solely for plaintiff's benefit the nuisance exception to the immunity previously accorded the Kansas turnpike authority under our law as it existed prior to Carroll. " (l.c. 774.) (Emphasis supplied.) Prior to our decision in Carroll the common-law immunity concept was attacked from time to time as violating constitutional guarantees. ( McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P.2d 73 ; Caywood v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 419 , 399 P.2d 561 .) In Carroll we judicially altered the immunity doctrine so that it applied uniformly to all units of govern

1975We ... decline to engraft solely for plaintiff's benefit the nuisance exception to the immunity previously accorded the Kansas turnpike authority under our law as it existed prior to Carroll. " (l.c. 774.) (Emphasis supplied.) Prior to our decision in Carroll the common-law immunity concept was attacked from time to time as violating constitutional guarantees. ( McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P.2d 73 ; Caywood v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 419 , 399 P.2d 561 .) In Carroll we judicially altered the immunity doctrine so that it applied uniformly to all units of govern

2013Rodgers, 285 S.W.3d at 754 .

1985In Deary v. Three Un-named Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3d Cir. 1984), the court considered the effect of Harlow on the immunity defense in a civil rights claim based on a warrantless arrest.

1982However, K.S.A. 60-212( h )(2) states: " A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under K.S.A. 60-207(a) or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits. " (Emphasis supplied.) Traditionally, the immunity defense has been raised as a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (see e.g., Flax v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 226 Kan. 1 , 596 P.2d 446 [1979]

1982However, K.S.A. 60-212( h )(2) states: " A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under K.S.A. 60-207(a) or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits. " (Emphasis supplied.) Traditionally, the immunity defense has been raised as a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (see e.g., Flax v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 226 Kan. 1 , 596 P.2d 446 [1979]

1982However, K.S.A. 60-212(h)(2) states: “A defense of failure to state a claim, upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under K.S.A. 60-207(a) or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits. ” (Emphasis supplied.) Traditionally, the immunity defense has been raised as a “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” (see e.g., Flax v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 226 Kan. 1 , 596 P.2d 446 [1979]),

1982However, K.S.A. 60-212( h )(2) states: " A defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a defense of failure to join a party under K.S.A. 60-219, and an objection of failure to state a legal defense to a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under K.S.A. 60-207(a) or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits. " (Emphasis supplied.) Traditionally, the immunity defense has been raised as a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted" (see e.g., Flax v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 226 Kan. 1 , 596 P.2d 446 [1979]

1981In short, the immunity doctrine cannot be fairly sustained on the basis that negligence suits between husbands and wives will disrupt the harmony of the family.'" Citing Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 489-90 , 267 A.2d 481 (1970).

1981In short, the immunity doctrine cannot be fairly sustained on the basis that negligence suits between husbands and wives will disrupt the harmony of the family.'" Citing Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 489-90 , 267 A.2d 481 (1970).

1978The origin and history of the immunity doctrine, its adoption and application in Kansas, and the exceptions created to temper the harshness of its application, are discussed in detail by Chief Justice Fatzer in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 291, 292 , 540 P.2d 66 (1975), modified on reh. 219 Kan. 2 , 547 P.2d 1015 (1976), app. dis. 429 U.S. 806 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 , 97 S.Ct. 41 (1976).

1978The origin and history of the immunity doctrine, its adoption and application in Kansas, and the exceptions created to temper the harshness of its application, are discussed in detail by Chief Justice Fatzer in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 291, 292 , 540 P.2d 66 (1975), modified on reh. 219 Kan. 2 , 547 P.2d 1015 (1976), app. dis. 429 U.S. 806 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 , 97 S.Ct. 41 (1976).

1978The origin and history of the immunity doctrine, its adoption and application in Kansas, and the exceptions created to temper the harshness of its application, are discussed in detail by Chief Justice Fatzer in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 291, 292 , 540 P.2d 66 (1975), modified on reh. 219 Kan. 2 , 547 P.2d 1015 (1976), app. dis. 429 U.S. 806 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 , 97 S.Ct. 41 (1976).

1978The origin and history of the immunity doctrine, its adoption and application in Kansas, and the exceptions created to temper the harshness of its application, are discussed in detail by Chief Justice Fatzer in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 291, 292 , 540 P.2d 66 (1975), modified on reh. 219 Kan. 2 , 547 P.2d 1015 (1976), app. dis. 429 U.S. 806 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 , 97 S.Ct. 41 (1976).

1978The origin and history of the immunity doctrine, its adoption and application in Kansas, and the exceptions created to temper the harshness of its application, are discussed in detail by Chief Justice Fatzer in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 291, 292 , 540 P.2d 66 (1975), modified on reh. 219 Kan. 2 , 547 P.2d 1015 (1976), app. dis. 429 U.S. 806 , 50 L.Ed.2d 67 , 97 S.Ct. 41 (1976).

1975Subsequent decisions of this court ( Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770 , 472 P.2d 219 ; Daniels v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 206 Kan. 710 , 482 P.2d 46 ; Allen v. City of Ogden, 210 Kan. 136 , 499 P.2d 527 ) have been in accord with the immunity doctrine as codified, the exceptions thereto under the common law, and the several legislative inroads.

1975Subsequent decisions of this court ( Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770 , 472 P.2d 219 ; Daniels v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 206 Kan. 710 , 482 P.2d 46 ; Allen v. City of Ogden, 210 Kan. 136 , 499 P.2d 527 ) have been in accord with the immunity doctrine as codified, the exceptions thereto under the common law, and the several legislative inroads.

1975Subsequent decisions of this court ( Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770 , 472 P.2d 219 ; Daniels v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 206 Kan. 710 , 482 P.2d 46 ; Allen v. City of Ogden, 210 Kan. 136 , 499 P.2d 527 ) have been in accord with the immunity doctrine as codified, the exceptions thereto under the common law, and the several legislative inroads.

1975Subsequent decisions of this court ( Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770 , 472 P.2d 219 ; Daniels v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 206 Kan. 710 , 482 P.2d 46 ; Allen v. City of Ogden, 210 Kan. 136 , 499 P.2d 527 ) have been in accord with the immunity doctrine as codified, the exceptions thereto under the common law, and the several legislative inroads.

1975(Kretchmar v. City of Atchison, 133 Kan. 198 , 299 Pac. 621 ; Gresty v. Darby, 146 Kan. 63 , 68 P. 2d 649 ; Cunningham v. Blythe, 155 Kan. 689 , 127 P. 2d 489 .) Although early decisions of this court, City of Topeka v. Tuttle, 5 Kan. 186 [* 311]; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 550 ; City of Atchison v. Challiss, 9 Kan. 603 ; City of Ottawa v. Washabaugh, 11 Kan. 102 [* 124]; City of Wyandotte v. White, 13 Kan. 146 [* 191], were related to the liability of government, we first recognized the immunity doctrine in Eikenberry v. Township of Bazaar, 22 Kan. 389 [* 556].

1975Rev. 209 [1963].) Under the doctrine of immunity for governmental officers, the common law recognized the necessity of permitting public officials to perform their official duties free from the threat of personal liability. ( Kretchmar v. City of Atchison, 133 Kan. 198 , 299 Pac. 621 ; Gresty v. Darby, 146 Kan. 63 , 68 P.2d 649 ; Cunningham v. Blythe, 155 Kan. 689 , 127 P.2d 489 .) Although early decisions of this court, City of Topeka v. Tuttle, *292 5 Kan. 186 [* 311]; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 550 ; City of Atchison v. Challiss, 9 Kan. 603 ; City of Ottawa v. Washabaugh, 11 Kan. 102

1975Pac. 49; Rose v. City of Gypsum, 104 Kan. 412 , 179 Pac. 348 .) In Carroll we reversed our holding in McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P. 2d 73 , that the proprietary function exception to' the immunity doctrine was not applicable to either counties or the state.

1975Pac. 49; Rose v. City of Gypsum, 104 Kan. 412 , 179 Pac. 348 .) In Carroll we reversed our holding in McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P. 2d 73 , that the proprietary function exception to' the immunity doctrine was not applicable to either counties or the state.

1975Rev. 209 [1963].) Under the doctrine of immunity for governmental officers, the common law recognized the necessity of permitting public officials to perform their official duties free from the threat of personal liability. ( Kretchmar v. City of Atchison, 133 Kan. 198 , 299 Pac. 621 ; Gresty v. Darby, 146 Kan. 63 , 68 P.2d 649 ; Cunningham v. Blythe, 155 Kan. 689 , 127 P.2d 489 .) Although early decisions of this court, City of Topeka v. Tuttle, *292 5 Kan. 186 [* 311]; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 550 ; City of Atchison v. Challiss, 9 Kan. 603 ; City of Ottawa v. Washabaugh, 11 Kan. 102

1975Rev. 209 [1963].) Under the doctrine of immunity for governmental officers, the common law recognized the necessity of permitting public officials to perform their official duties free from the threat of personal liability. ( Kretchmar v. City of Atchison, 133 Kan. 198 , 299 Pac. 621 ; Gresty v. Darby, 146 Kan. 63 , 68 P.2d 649 ; Cunningham v. Blythe, 155 Kan. 689 , 127 P.2d 489 .) Although early decisions of this court, City of Topeka v. Tuttle, *292 5 Kan. 186 [* 311]; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 550 ; City of Atchison v. Challiss, 9 Kan. 603 ; City of Ottawa v. Washabaugh, 11 Kan. 102

1975Rev. 209 [1963].) Under the doctrine of immunity for governmental officers, the common law recognized the necessity of permitting public officials to perform their official duties free from the threat of personal liability. ( Kretchmar v. City of Atchison, 133 Kan. 198 , 299 Pac. 621 ; Gresty v. Darby, 146 Kan. 63 , 68 P.2d 649 ; Cunningham v. Blythe, 155 Kan. 689 , 127 P.2d 489 .) Although early decisions of this court, City of Topeka v. Tuttle, *292 5 Kan. 186 [* 311]; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 550 ; City of Atchison v. Challiss, 9 Kan. 603 ; City of Ottawa v. Washabaugh, 11 Kan. 102

1975Rev. 209 [1963].) Under the doctrine of immunity for governmental officers, the common law recognized the necessity of permitting public officials to perform their official duties free from the threat of personal liability. ( Kretchmar v. City of Atchison, 133 Kan. 198 , 299 Pac. 621 ; Gresty v. Darby, 146 Kan. 63 , 68 P.2d 649 ; Cunningham v. Blythe, 155 Kan. 689 , 127 P.2d 489 .) Although early decisions of this court, City of Topeka v. Tuttle, *292 5 Kan. 186 [* 311]; City of Atchison v. King, 9 Kan. 550 ; City of Atchison v. Challiss, 9 Kan. 603 ; City of Ottawa v. Washabaugh, 11 Kan. 102

1975Subsequent decisions of this court ( Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770 , 472 P.2d 219 ; Daniels v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 206 Kan. 710 , 482 P.2d 46 ; Allen v. City of Ogden, 210 Kan. 136 , 499 P.2d 527 ) have been in accord with the immunity doctrine as codified, the exceptions thereto under the common law, and the several legislative inroads.

1975Subsequent decisions of this court ( Woods v. Kansas Turnpike Authority, 205 Kan. 770 , 472 P.2d 219 ; Daniels v. Kansas Highway Patrol, 206 Kan. 710 , 482 P.2d 46 ; Allen v. City of Ogden, 210 Kan. 136 , 499 P.2d 527 ) have been in accord with the immunity doctrine as codified, the exceptions thereto under the common law, and the several legislative inroads.